Idsa Lecture, Finch (2006) Offers Seven Arguments

¶ … IDSA lecture, Finch (2006) offers seven arguments against mandatory influenza vaccinations for health care workers. The reasons are primarily philosophical, political, and ethical in nature. Although Finch (2006) substantiates his primary claims with references to literature and historical precedent, none of the claims refer to the ultimate goal of vaccination programs: reducing rates of serious illness or death resulting from influenza. Finch's (2006) arguments are sound and tight, but would be enhanced greatly by references to the role mandatory vaccination might play in reducing the spread of highly communicable diseases.

Likewise, the author does not provide sufficient counterpoints to the core arguments and does not entertain the opposing viewpoint. There is no mention of influenza rates, the potential for disease proliferation among at-risk communities, or the role mandatory vaccinations may play in diseases other than influenza, such as Ebola. In spite of the weaknesses in the Finch (2006) argument, the seven points are well-made and also reasonable. The first reason Finch (2006) provides against mandatory inoculations is that such programs threaten to erode the relationship between health care workers and administrators.

Issues such as weak morale could have a net harmful impact on the health care institution, causing a breakdown in health care provisions due to lack of trust and suspicion. A program as paternalistic as a mandatory vaccination program could foreseeably threaten to undermine worker satisfaction, and Finch (2006) also provides evidence from numerous sources to ostensibly back up the claim. Finch (2006) suggests instead that workers be strongly encouraged to voluntarily submit to vaccinations.

Making vaccination programs voluntary empowers the workers, entrusting them with the decision while also promoting public health goals. Key words in Finch's (2006) first argument include "respect," which remains a common theme throughout the entire case against mandatory vaccination programs for health care workers. The first reason therefore sets the ethical tone for the subsequent arguments. One of Finch's (2006) strongest cases against mandatory vaccination programs for health care workers is the second reason, which refers to the legal constraints.

The legal constraints are rooted in the same ethical concerns that Finch (2006) discusses throughout the paper. Most importantly, mandatory vaccination programs threaten to undermine civil rights and liberties. Following from the legal argument, Finch (2006) segues into the issue of hospital liability. Although rare, serious and potentially fatal side effects can result from the vaccination itself. Finch (2006) therefore urges strong consideration of the legal issues confounding the decision of whether or not to legislate mandatory vaccination programs.

On the other hand, Finch (2006) offers one of the weakest arguments against the mandatory vaccination programs in Reason 4. Reason 4 is blatantly a logical fallacy. Finch (2006) claims that mandatory vaccinations for health care workers currently do not exist, and therefore no future vaccination programs should exist. The fifth reason Finch (2006) provides against mandatory vaccination programs is that the program might provide a false sense of security.

This is a straw man fallacy, as there is no reason to assume that health care workers will stop washing their hands simply because they received a flu vaccine. Instead of providing evidence to support the claim, the author simply provides evidence-based practices for disease prevention. There is no reason to assume that health care workers will stop washing their hands properly, or take precautions any less seriously, if they received an influenza vaccine. After all, influenza is only one of many transmittable diseases.

The sixth reason is similarly flawed in its logic. Finch (2006) provides as a reason the need to educate the pubic about health care in general. Yet education can coexist with vaccinations. Educating the public about influenza does not impact the prevalence of health care worker vaccines. More importantly, educating the public does not inoculate health care workers against a disease. Ultimately it is vaccination, not education, that minimizes the spread of a communicable disease. What Finch (2006) ultimately wants to say is that voluntary vaccination programs are preferable to mandatory ones.

The author wastes too much time on misleading and logical fallacies. Instead, Finch (2006) should focus on the ethical issues that the topic does raise. Moreover, the author needs to rely on points that can be substantiated by evidence. The seventh and final argument in the article is that voluntary vaccination programs can lead.