Thank you abc12345j!
Took some advice and wrote one at school during my 2 hour English class
It was a comparative language analysis by the way, can't find an online copy of the article but you can try to google the title and some articles may come up
Thanks to anyone who provides feedback (:
Refusing to vaccinate children is not a conscience issue
A new law regarding compulsory immunisations has recently caught media attention, sparking the idea as to whether it is a conscience issue or not. Tanya Plibersek explains in her opinion piece directed at parents, that vaccinations are not a conscience issue and that they are required for good health. In a critical tone, she intends for her audience to have their children immunised. In divergence; Giff, a reader, disagrees with Plibersek and believes that immunisations are dangers. However, another reader, Adam, deems vaccinations to be a health benefit.
From the outset, Plibersek suggests in a strident tone that those who do not immunise their children are making a senseless decision, portraying them to be a minority that cannot be taken seriously, and that they should be ostracised. She immediately places an attack on “vaccine refusers” stating that they are “irresponsibly denying their and other children the protection vaccinations offer.” This suggests to the audience of parents that they are disadvantaging not only their kids, but other kids if they choose not to vaccinate them. This attack is intended to place guilt on “vaccine refusers”, getting them to think about how the children of others and their own are being effected by the rejection of vaccinations. In acknowledgement, Adam trusts Plibersek’s views on the necessity of vaccinations. He does not understand “exposing children to crippling and sometimes fatal diseases” that can be easily prevented. By stating that the best information is currently in favour of vaccination, it displays that there is far more scientific evidence conveying that inoculations provide health benefits.
The author shows that in return for a harmless procedure, children can be protected from harmful diseases. Plibersek attaches a photo of a child being immunised via an oral vaccination, with a caption expressing that “polio inoculations have almost eradicated what used to be a crippling disease,” displaying an actual sample of successful vaccinations. The photo also proves that inoculations are harmless and provide a long term benefit in good health. There is a hand delivering the oral vaccination, suggesting a ‘helping hand’, again reiterating the idea of a health benefit in return for no harm at all. Plibersek anticipates for parents to become more open-minded when it comes to immunisations after seeing that the advantages from them comes in return for something harmless. Adam re-states one of Plibersek’s points; “you are entitled to your view; however, society doesn’t appreciate your view is that your decision puts the health of others in the community at risk.” By reiterating this idea, he is indicating that the choice of not vaccinating children puts their health at risk, which is completely unnecessary. This is expected to cause the audience to feel some sort of sympathy towards the issue that is easily avoidable.
Plibersek subtly implies that vaccine refusers should not be called the term “conscientious objectors” because it is used inappropriately. To support this idea, she compares a real example of a true conscientious objector to refusing immunisations; using Muhammad Ali’s negation to participate in the Vietnam War. Plibersek’s bold assertion that no major religion has prohibition on vaccination directly weakens the idea of a ‘conscientious objector’, implies that parents who refuse vaccinations do not do so because of ethical beliefs, proving that immunisations are not an ‘conscience issue’. The audience is now meant to see the complete difference between an authentic conscientious objector and a “vaccine refuser”, getting parents to think about real ethical beliefs and how they compare to vaccinations.
In opposition, Giff has completely disagreed with Plibersek’s opinions. Giff believes that “early immunisation does carry long term effects for a young child’s health and development.” With this idea, they provide information on how other advanced countries around the world match Australian health standards, who accept their point of view. The author expresses to parents that Australia can be an advanced country in terms of health without immunisations. This places the audience in a position to believe that the new law concerning compulsory vaccinations is unnecessary in order for good health.
Plibersek’s intentions were to grow the group of people that choose to immunise their children. She attempted to do this through explaining that in return for an innocuous process, many health benefits are granted. An appeal to health and safety would be the most effective way to involve the entirety of the audience. Therefore, convincing parents to become more open-minded about vaccinations.
Home
Help
Search
Login
