Many childhood diseases can now be prevented with vaccines. Should parents be made by law to immunize their children against common diseases or should individuals have the right to choose not to immunize their children? Discuss both views and give your opinion.

In recent years, the public has been divided on issue of vaccine legalization for children, in both developed and developing countries. Although some believe the right to refuse vaccination should be highly regarded, making vaccination a legal obligation appears more reasonable overall.

There are certain reasons why parents should have the right to refuse to vaccinate their kids. First, many vaccines are prohibitively expensive, which discourages kids from disadvantaged backgrounds to be vaccinated. In fact, if low-income households were legally required to immunize their kids with vaccines, they would rather choose to either delay or refuse vaccinations altogether, since that would seriously jeopardize their financial status. In addition, many citizens are concerned about side effects caused by various vaccine types. For example, it is not feasible for kids with certain medical conditions to be vaccinated, as it poses severe allergic reactions or even autism to them.

Nevertheless, the authorities should take legal actions to ensure vaccination for every child because that is highly necessary. First, if all kids were vaccinated, there would be fewer medical cases in the future, thus saving time and efforts to treat them. In fact, thanks to immunization programs backed by the governments, various contagious diseases have been prevented, which ensures public health. Besides, if vaccination regulations come into play, many kids, especially those in rural areas, will be able to survive widespread illnesses that affect plenty of communities. As a result, parents would be motivated to get their kids immunized by vaccines, thereby significantly improving their health.

In conclusion, introducing laws with regard to vaccination should be encouraged, as it offers positive changes overall. By obliging to these regulations, citizens and their children will lead a healthier life.

In recent years, the public has been divided on the issue of making certain vaccinations compulsory legalization for children, in both developed and developing countries. Although some believe the right to refuse vaccination should be respected, highly regarded, in my view, making such vaccinations a legal obligation appears more reasonable overall.

There are certain reasons why parents should have the right to refuse to vaccinate their kids. First, many vaccines are prohibitively expensive, which discourages kids parents from disadvantaged backgrounds to be from vaccinating their children. ed. In fact, if low-income households were legally required to immunize their kids with those vaccines, they would rather many may choose to either delay or refuse vaccinations altogether, since that would seriously jeopardize their the costs constitute a financial burden for them. status. In addition, many citizens people/parents are concerned about the side effects caused by of various vaccine types of vaccines. For example, it is not feasible for advisable that kids with certain medical conditions to be vaccinated, as it poses that may cause severe allergic reactions or even autism permanent damage to them.

Nevertheless, the authorities should take legal actions to ensure benefits of vaccination clearly overshadow any potential drawbacks. for every child because that is highly necessary. First, if all kids were vaccinated, mass vaccination campaigns for children mean there would be fewer medical or no cases of some illnesses in the future, thus saving enormous amounts of time and effort to treat them. In fact, thanks to immunization programs backed by the governments, the incidence of various contagious diseases has been greatly reduced, and in certain cases such as small pox, totally eliminated. prevented, which ensures public health. Besides, if vaccination regulations come into play, many kids, especially those in rural areas, will be able to survive widespread epidemics illnesses that affect plenty of communities. As a result, parents would be motivated should be encouraged to get their kids immunized, by vaccines, thereby significantly improving their future health prospects.

In conclusion, although some parents may be reluctant to vaccinate their children because of concerns about costs or side effects, introducing laws with regard to vaccination should be encouraged, as it means reduced incidence of certain contagious diseases and is more cost-effective in the long term. offers positive changes overall. By obliging to these regulations, citizens and their children will lead a healthier life.

Thanks for your time, teechr. There's one thing that I find quite difficult to grasp, which is the use of articles: "the", "a".

E.g: This case: "many citizenspeople/parents are concerned about the side effects". To my knowledge, "side effects" aren't mentioned before, which means the article "the" is supposed to be ignored, right?

Besides, I also wonder about this case, "it is not feasible for advisable that kids with certain medical conditions to be vaccinated". "Kids with certain medical conditions be vaccinated" doesn't form a clause, meaning that this phrase can't be merged with the original sentence, is that correct?

Lastly, I don't understand why you prefer using "respected" over "highly regarded", as in the case of this sentence "Although some believe the right to refuse vaccination should be respected, highly regarded",

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Ngô Ngọc LâmTo my knowledge, "side effects" aren't mentioned before, which means the article "the" is supposed to be ignored, right?

We are talking about specific side effects ("of various types of vaccines"), so we need the definite article.

Ngô Ngọc LâmBesides, I also wonder about this case, "it is not feasible for advisable that kids with certain medical conditions to be vaccinated". "Kids with certain medical conditions be vaccinated" doesn't form a clause, meaning that this phrase can't be merged with the original sentence, is that correct?

In that, I changed "feasible" to "advisable", which changed the structure. The original is not wrong. I just changed it because it seemed better to use "advisable".

Ngô Ngọc Lâm Lastly, I don't understand why you prefer using "respected" over "highly regarded", as in the case of this sentence "Although some believe the right to refuse vaccination should be respected, highly regarded",

Those are different: "respected" can mean "acknowledged/accepted", but "highly regarded" means "highly valued" or "held in high esteem".

Thanks, teechr. Sorry, I didn't get my point across in the second case. I reckon it has to be something like "It is not advisable that kids with certain medical conditions will/can be vaccinated". I mean, if that's not the case, that will be similar to "It's not advisable that he be vaccinated", which I don't think is the correct way of saying it. Or is it the right way?

Ngô Ngọc LâmI reckon it has to be something like "It is not advisable that kids with certain medical conditions will/can be vaccinated".

No. That is incorrect.

Ngô Ngọc LâmI mean, if that's not the case, that will be similar to "It's not advisable that he be vaccinated", which I don't think is the correct way of saying it. Or is it the right way?

It's actually correct. It's called the mandative subjunctive. You can read up on it. However, in sentences like those, you will also see "is/are" instead of "be".

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?

Oh, that's something new to me. Thank you very much, teechr.