This portfolio from one of my english courses demonstrates my extensive writing abilities. It includes a multitude of essays which demonstrates my ability to write from multiple points of view and take stances on many different topics. It also shows that I work hard in my classes and strive to achieve high academic performance.

1. Smith 1
Reflective Essay
Baylee Smith
Instr. Ryan Strader
ENGL 1102
20 April 2016
English 1102 Reflective Essay
In english 1102 I learned the importance of the use of rhetoric in my writing to develop a
style. Developing a writing style allows an audience to develop an understanding about the
author’s tone and the purpose of the piece. I also learned that using the fundamental assumptions
is a way to address exactly what type of audience I am writing to and how to appeal to this type
of audience in order to make the strongest possible argument. By writing a position and
opposition paper, I learned how to format my writing to be unbiased and and make a coherent
point without expressing my personal opinion on the topic. Because I have learned to write from
different standpoints that I do not agree with, my arguments became stronger by relying solely
on facts and research in order to inform my audience. Most importantly, I learned to better
research a topic and extract information and quotes that will best support my argument.
Becoming better at research has helped me to more efficiently develop my writing by using
evidence. I have grown as a writer because I now understand the importance of organization in
an essay. I understood the importance of grammar and proper structure before this semester.
However, I came to realize that an outstanding essay is one with rich content, bright ideas, highly
researched evidence, insightful opinions, and well thought-out ideas and solutions. This has
taught me to focus more on the points, arguments, research, and overall content of an essay,
whether I am acting as a reader or writing it myself, rather than grammatical error.

2. Smith 2
In my portfolio, I included a few things I have written that show the development of my
writing style as the semester progressed, as well as compositions that exemplify my ability to
structure an essay in an organized manner. I chose this series of essays because they are not
perfect, but with input from my peers and teachers, I revised each one until I felt that they
reached full potential. A variety of different compositions make up my portfolio, each one
exemplifying a different characteristic that shows improvement in my writing skills. The position
essay, for example, shows that I gained the ability to develop a well- researched thesis and use
the evidence I gathered in order to strengthen my argument. The film analysis allowed me to
demonstrate more creativity and produce my own personal opinions in order to explore the true
meaning behind the structure and dialogue of the film. The rhetorical reading response was
included in order to demonstrate my ability to read a piece and analyze its components to
communicate any underlying meaning based on the its structure, diction, tone, and format. The
artifact demonstrating my thought process before writing my position essay shows the different
ideas and arguments I was able to develop using the research I gathered, in order to write an
organized and strongly written paper with solid arguments. Lastly, the peer review allowed me to
demonstrate my ability to analyze the compositions of other writers in order to give an outsiders
opinion on the development of the essay and suggest how improvements could be made.
Essentially, each piece was picked based upon how well it presented my writing style, and how
accurately it represented my ability to use what I learned in english 1102 in my compositions.

3. Smith 3
Rhetorical Reading Response
Baylee Smith
Instr. Ryan Strader
ENGL 1102
12 February 2016
The Right to Refuse Reading Response
In the essay “The Right to Refuse” (30 April 2015), the author, Chase Tarleton claims
that Indiana’s Senate Bill 568 (“Religious Freedom Restoration Act”) gives private businesses
the right to discriminate against the LGBT community on the grounds of violation of personal
religion, and argues that it should be edited by the Indiana Senate to explicitly protect those
opposed to it in order to preserve their rights and freedoms. Tarleton developed his thesis
through evidence of several business owners who used this bill as a “loophole” in order to
discriminate against LGBT people such as “Individuals like Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece
Bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, who refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual-male
couple…” (Tarleton 294). Tarleton’s purpose in writing this essay was to state the issues that this
bill imposed, such as the failure to protect the rights of LGBT citizens while managing to keep
intact the rights of religious people, in order to propose a way that this issue could be solved by
the Indiana Senate. Tarleton is directing his message toward conservatives and members of the
Indiana Senate, which is evidenced by his plea to modify the new bill to better fit the needs of all
citizens, not only religious business owners.
I enjoyed many of the points the author made in order to best support the main idea.
However, the best point Tartleton made was when he stated: “The primary concern of those
opposed to the bill lies in the vagueness of its wording, specifically that a ‘refusal to act’ is listed

4. Smith 4
as a protected expression of religion.” (Tarleton 294). After making this point, he goes on to
describe the many ways private business owners have abused this new right by discriminating
against others based on their religious affiliation. I agree with the main argument of this essay,
that “While Governor Mike Pence vehemently denies that providing free license for business
owners to discriminate against LGBT individuals was the purpose of SB 568, instances across
the United States of store owners and professional business persons doing just that and citing
their religious beliefs as justification for such acts provide opponents of the bill with just cause
for their nervousness.” (Tarleton 294). I believe that the power this bill gives people will be
easily abused, used to discriminate against others, as well as unlawfully strip a specific group of
their rights if it is left as is without modification. As someone who would describe myself as
traditionally more conservative, I understand it is easy to feel the need to block out what you do
not agree with, but there is a moral line that must be drawn in those situations. It is not right to
take away someone’s ability to shop in a store or eat in a restaurant, simply because they are
different from you. Automative assistance, which is more of a necessity than a privilege, would
be denied by “Brian Klawiter, owner of the automotive service company Dieseltec in Grandville,
Michigan, publicly declaring that he would refuse service to openly homosexual customers if he
saw fit.” (Tarleton 294). The LGBT community is people that deserve the same rights to basic
necessities and privileges that anyone else does, regardless of beliefs. I agree with Tarleton in
that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should be modified to be more specific in order to
protect the LGBT community and better suit Indiana’s population as a whole and not just its
conservative or religious inhabitants.
After reading this essay, one might ask: How can the Indiana Senate modify this bill in
order to uphold the rights of all people? Tarleton suggests the best way to protect LGBT rights,

5. Smith 5
while still allowing religious people theirs is to allow for “wording that explicitly states that the
bill does not allow for the refusal of services to anyone based on any demographic factors, sexual
orientation included…” (Tarleton). It seems the largest issue with this bill is that it allows people
to be discriminated against based on their demographics upon the grounds of conflict of religion.
The LGBT community is specifically targeted under these circumstances because it conflicts
with most religions and can easily be differentiated in today’s society (for example, the case of
the two men being refused a wedding cake as given by Tarleton). In order to solve this issue, the
audience must recognize that there is a problem in the first place, which was Tarleton’s main
purpose in composing this essay. The next step is to impose a sort of logos in the audience,
causing them to ask themselves: “Why shouldn’t all people have their rights, regardless of sexual
orientation?” and “Isn’t freedom for all people what America is all about?”; this would result in
the recognition of LGBT people as a protected class under the Indiana civil rights law as a
solution. This was Tarleton’s call to action aimed toward his audience, that it is unreasonable to
discriminate or exclude rights from any group of people of different demographics than their
own, even if it is not what they believe in.

6. Smith 6
Works Cited
Tarleton, Chase. "The Right to Refuse." Connections: Guide to First-Year Writing @ Clayton
State University. Ed. Mary R. Lamb. 5th ed. Southlake: Fountainhead, 2015. 293-299.
Print.

7. Smith 7
Artifact that Demonstrates Writing Process
Baylee Smith
Instr. Ryan Strader
ENGL 1102
18 April 2016
Position Topic: Parents should be required to vaccinate their children.
The use of inductive and deductive arguments in my position paper helped to
demonstrate the logic behind each statement. Breaking down each piece of evidence, whether the
statement was broad or more specific, allowed the audience to see the point I was attempting to
make, along with supporting evidence to validate the statement. This strengthened my argument
and made it simpler to follow as it defined each point clearly and precisely. The importance of
this type of argument lies within its format. Formatting arguments in this manner is an efficient
way to clearly make a point and summarize an argument in just a few short sentences.The use of
inductive and deductive arguments in this particular paper was important because it gave concise
answers to complex questions, proved each point with valid information, and inherently stated
each argument.
Position Viewpoint:
Inductive argument #1: Mandatory vaccination for children makes herd-immunity more
effective in keeping a life-threatening disease at minimum in a nation// Death rates and
hospitalizations will be lower without diseases that can be prevented resurfacing// Herd-
immunity keeps death rates and hospitalizations low.
Inductive argument #2: Parents have medical liability over their children and can choose to
request a philosophical exemption if they oppose vaccination// Physicians have a moral

8. Smith 8
obligation to do what is best for their patients’ health// Physicians should require parents to
complete a liability waiver to inform them of the risks should they choose to not vaccinate their
children.
Deductive argument #1: Vaccines prevent life-threatening diseases// Parents have the capability
to give preventative treatment to their children// Parents should vaccinate their children for their
safety and health as well as for the well-being of others.
Deductive argument #2: Vaccines are safe and effective due to extensive research//Extensive
federal government funding is set aside for medical research and studies for better vaccines by
the CDC, WHO, FDA, etc.// People should take advantage of preventative care that is offered by
a world class healthcare system.
Opposing Viewpoint:
Inductive argument #1: Religious exemptions are present to exempt people from vaccinations if
it infringes upon their personal beliefs// People have constitutionally protected rights to religious
freedom// The government cannot require people to get vaccinations because it infringes upon
their right to religious freedom.
Inductive argument #2: The allowance of the government to decide whether or not people
should be required to receive injections of known or unknown toxicity is giving up our right to
our own bodies// Government infringement upon personal medical decisions is wrong// We can
not allow the government to take away our most basic human right, the right to our own bodies.
Deductive argument #1: Some vaccines contain harmful ingredients// People are at risk of
dangerous and sometimes fatal side effects from MSGs in some vaccines// People should not be
required to unnecessarily expose their body to potentially harmful MSGs.

9. Smith 9
Deductive argument #2: Vaccines are unnatural// natural immunity is more effective than
vaccination// You should not receive vaccinations in order to allow your body to build up a
natural immunity.
The fine line between allowing a patient to make their own decision in regards to what is
best for their family and doing what is best for a child who is unable to make their own medical
decisions is difficult to decipher. This is the most extraordinary battle for every physician: the
balance between what is moral and what is ethical. McLeod’s argument, that physicians are
advocates for children who are not able to make their own decisions regarding their health, is
beneficial in promoting the pro-mandatory vaccination stance. The author asks her audience,
who are presumably physicians: “Does a parent have the right to expose their child to potentially
fatal diseases when it’s possible to prevent them?” (McLeod 1). Throughout the entry, McLeod
argues that not only do parents not have this right to deny their children preventative treatment,
but also that “physicians have a moral duty to ensure that these children get the preventative care
that they need and have the ability to be some of the strongest advocates for children’s health in
clinical and legal arenas.” (McLeod 1). In theory, this idea that physicians who, as highly
educated and medically experienced individuals, should be able to tell parents what is best for
their children’s health, unfortunately would not work from an ethical and legal standpoint. This
is because of patients’ rights and general hesitance by physicians to damage the relationship
between themselves and their patients for reasons such as “patient autonomy, one of the
cornerstones of modern medical ethics, and the desire to avoid paternalism.” (McLeod 2).
Ultimately, patients have the rights to their bodies as well as their children’s. However, it is the
job of a physician to analyze a situation and advocate for children at all costs; they must take
control of a situation that is out of hand and take action where they are legally capable.

10. Smith 10
Federal government-required vaccination is a concept commonly debated. The
controversy about whether or not vaccinations should be required comes down to a simple
question: Is the decision to vaccinate children a personal choice, or a necessity in order to
maintain the health and safety of the overall population? Those who generally oppose it argue
from more of a type one fundamental assumption; that what is natural is best for the well-being
of all people. The fundamental assumption that what is natural is beneficial for mankind suggests
that vaccinations are harmful because of their toxicity and that they are essentially just an
artificial substitution for an immunity the body is capable of generating without the intervention
of synthetic immunization. Commonly held viewpoints from this side of the controversy range
from a debate over infringement upon human rights, to general distrust in the federal government
and its agencies that are regulating these vaccinations. Arguments opposing mandatory
vaccination include the view that the federal government should not be allowed to have control
over what one does with their body and that allowing our bodies to build up a natural immunity
is more effective than artificial vaccines.

11. Smith 11
Example of Peer Revision
Peer Essay
Instr. Strader
ENGL 1102
13 April 2016
Unfair Denial
Students all over the United States as freshmen in high school make goals for themselves,
often these goals include where they would like to go to college. For the next four years they
work hard making good grades, getting special honors, participating in the community, getting
high SAT/ACT scores, and writing well thought out essays. This goal of their dream college is
kept in the back of their mind as they plan and complete the next four years, everything is done
to better their chances of acceptance. Now during their senior year, they have completed
applications and have kept high grades as well as made good test scores while also balancing a
community presence. All of this work and determination to find out their last semester of high
school that their work was for nothing. They have been denied of their dream, and all because of
something that is not their fault. Many times academically qualified students are given denials
for reasons that have nothing to do with their academic profile. Colleges are forced to hand out
denials because they are required to meet diversity numbers and have difficulty distinguishing
between different high school GPAs, “many [high schools] use weighted systems perhaps giving
extra “points” to grades from honors, accelerated [etc.]” (Eger). This partial weight system keeps
students from being looked at on an even field. The college admissions process is simply unfair
and holds back some of the best academic minds from going to their dream schools.

12. Smith 12
A better system needs to be put in place that discounts all of the discrimination. This new
system needs to be a purely number based review process. With a number review method, only
the best candidates would gain admittance and outside factors would not contribute to the
decision. The number based evaluation will only look at the academic profile of GPA, SAT/ACT
scores, class rank, individual class grades, and any other number created by the high school for
academic evaluation. In addition to only reviewing number based statistics, each student will be
assigned a number in place of all of their personal information for the entire review process, so
that an admissions officer would only see an ID number at the top of an application. This will
ensure that no community factors, such as race and financial background, will affect the
decision. This new process would give colleges the best academic minds because it is the most
fair and does not put weight in unimportant categories.
A number based review process is needed because it will provide a completely fair
system of acceptance. The fact that some students get admitted because of their race or the fact
that they get denied because of their race is unfair to their academic abilities. Those who feel the
admittance process should be completely neutral think, “the time has come to no longer allow
colleges to consider race at all when building their student bodies” (Barnes). If race were taken
out of the equation completely, this would ensure the best student body. By looking solely at
academic profile every student gets a fair chance at acceptance. Colleges would only gain the
most qualified students because they would not have to look at what box was checked under
race/ethnicity, and wouldn’t have to factor in how their diversity numbers would look. Another
point is that race does not always contribute to academic classes. One question asked was,
“‘What unique perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class?’” (Barnes). This
question brings a new perspective of what does race have to do with learning in group settings at

13. Smith 13
a university? The most qualified students should be admitted to colleges, and this should be done
solely on the students’ academic profile. This number system of objective/ color blind
acceptance will provide the fairest acceptance process possible.
College admissions officers often put too much weight into categories that do not
contribute to academic success. If this were stopped, more students who did not focus on outside
factors, which are less important, would be allowed into universities. While a student can be off
the charts in all academic areas, there are, “diversity guidelines[…] including race, ethnicity,
gender, and geographic distribution” (Cole). Students in each of these needed categories are
often cut slack in the academic areas because these colleges must meet these requirements. The
solution here needs to come from the process, the number based review process, none of these
categories should matter when deciding if a student will do well at a particular university.
Another issue with this system is it forces children to, “enroll in a volunteer program, not
necessarily because of true passion but for the record” (Cole). Applicants are trying to check as
many boxes as they can without putting too much time into any of them for fear that it takes time
away from the next possible box checking activity. This current process of expecting perfect and
more involved students has fostered a generation of half done projects without much thought put
into these events. By creating a process where the academic profile is the sole determinate, the
excess categories would not matter, and only the best students would be accepted.
There is an opposition argument to a solely academic review process. Many share a
dislike of the current system as evidenced when DiMaria states, “GPA, standardized tests, and
essays do not successfully measure the true talent of a college applicant” (1). Only looking at
raw numbers cannot effectively produce a true prediction of how well a student learns, how hard
they work, or how much dedication they have. These opponents feel that a solely academic

14. Smith 14
profile review would leave out the students that have great work ethic but not the best grades, but
all colleges wish to see these high academic preforming qualities in their students. They propose
an entirely new system be imposed, one that, “‘enables students who have important skills that
are not measured by the SAT or ACT to show that they are capable of doing strong college
work’” (DiMaria 2). This new system would tell colleges and universities what kind of work
ethic and ability this student has. However, a student needs to be able to keep good grades and
score well on tests, as this is what college entails. A number based review system will work best
because these numbers, GPA and test scores, are the best projectors of college academic success.
The best academic minds will be found with this new system as it would be the most impartial,
and it would discount outside factors.

15. Smith 15
Works Cited
Barnes, Robert. "Court Divided over University of Texas Race-conscious
Admissions." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 9 Dec. 2015. Web. 03 Apr. 2016.
Cole, Jonathan R. "Why Elite-College Admissions Need an Overhaul." The Atlantic. Atlantic
Media Company, 14 Feb. 2016. Web. 04 Apr. 2016.
DiMARIA, FRANK. "Rethinking The Admission Process." Education Digest 80.4 (2014): 55-
58.MasterFILE Elite. Web. 2 Apr. 2016.
Eger, John M. "There Is a Serious Flaw in College Admissions." The Huffington Post. 28 May
2011. Web. 04 Apr. 2016.

16. Smith 16
Baylee Smith
Instr. Ryan Strader
ENGL 1102
21 April 2016
Peer Review
The essay, written on the topic of diversity standards within the college admissions
process, clearly addresses the issue. The essay also inherently states the proposal of the solution,
which is to convert all college admissions processes to a number based review system. You
remained on task throughout the essay and do not allow your ideas and statements to stray away
from the topic. This essay is also well organized, as it begins with an introduction to the issue,
followed by a proposal to the solution, an explanation of the solution, further exploration into
the severity of the issue, and a conclusion. However, the information in the third paragraph
seems to restate the main ideas originally stated in the first paragraph. I suggest researching
different ideas and opinions on the topic in order to provide your essay with more variety. The
opposition to your topic is not addressed in the essay as well, which I believe would add a more
diverse opinion and stronger argument if you explained the reasoning behind why people would
disagree with a number based review system within the college admissions process. On the other
hand, your introduction is outstanding and truly hooks the audience as you take them through the
emotional process and hard work of a high school student attempting to achieve their dreams in
the first couple of sentences. This uses an emotional appeal, or pathos, in order to connect with
your readers on a deeper level. You ask them to imagine that sense of rejection and almost
trigger an angry response because of the unfair treatment based on something beyond a student’s
control. This keeps your audience reading and makes them want to listen and agree with what

17. Smith 17
you have to say, which is the ultimate goal of a proposal; to implement change in an area where
it is needed. Overall, you did a nice job of using evidence to support your claims, which
ultimately proves your credibility as a writer. The evidence you provided contributed to the
purpose of the essay by giving specific examples, followed by a generalized summary of each
quote written in your own words in order to strengthen your argument. For example, “While a
student can be off the charts in all academic areas, there are, ‘diversity guidelines[…] including
race, ethnicity, gender, and geographic distribution’ (Cole). Students in each of these needed
categories are often cut slack in the academic areas because these colleges must meet these
requirements.” Each statement was backed up with a quote from a reliable source with
information that was respectfully worded, which also shows you are a reliable source with a solid
proposal on how to solve an unfair issue.

18. Smith 18
First Sample from 1102
Baylee Smith
Instr. Ryan Strader
ENGL 1102
2 February 2016
Film Review/Analysis
Childhood is often a sore topic of discussion, depending on how you were raised. Now,
imagine telling the story of your own mother’s affair and solving the mystery of your own
paternity for an entire audience to observe. Sarah Polley does these things by asking the tough
questions in the memoir Stories We Tell. She beautifully crafts the story of her mother, Diane’s
life through the recollections and perspectives of those she was closest to. The entire film
consists of perspectives, memories, and arguments by her friends and family that knew of the
events and lived through them. Scenes from Diane’s past are recreated using a super 8 camera
which adds a very vintage and realistic depiction as though they were truly filming during the era
in which it took place. Polley’s ultimate purpose in composing this film is to give her audience
an idea of who her mother was as a person, her character, her internal struggles, and how Polley
went about discovering her mother’s affair that led to her findings about her biological father.
The element of perspective plays an important role in the film because of the various
people telling their point of view of the story from different aspects of Diane’s life. Her children
knew her for the kind-hearted and light spirit that she was, therefore their portions of the
documentary were filled with those joyful memories; “You can’t talk about Diane, I don’t think,
without talking about her laugh. It infused every situation that she was in. What attracted people
to her was her sense of joy.”, Sarah’s sister remembered warmly. Harry Gulkin, the man Diane

19. Smith 19
had an affair while acting in a play in Montreal, told her story with very little knowledge of the
life she had in Toronto, beyond her career as an actress. I feel that Diane’s husband, Michael
had more insight into her personal life, along with their relationship struggles which leads the
audience to believe this was a major contribution to Diane’s affair. In my opinion, the friends
and family of Diane portrayed mostly a type one fundamental assumption for their lack of
mentioning any world beyond the one we live in and a sole focus on what was happening in this
physical reality. Toward the end of the film, Sarah stresses the importance in her decision to
include each side of the story from everyone that Diane was close to as Harry felt it was his story
to tell and people beyond her immediate family had no place in telling it. This disagreement
between Polley and Harry caused a sort of tension as she ignored his distaste toward her creative
preferences.
The memory of each contributor to the documentary also plays a key role in how this
story was told. Diane’s children, who were young during the time these events occurred, may
have had a skewed vision about what really played out during this period. This story, being told
many years after these events occurred, could easily be damaged by time and by fault of the
human mind. Telling it involved many details that were small, but vital in portraying each event.
False remembrance of the tone of someone’s voice, a simple misread facial expression, or a
construed recollection of the true events could alter the plot entirely. Relying on what others
remember in order to tell such a story is what makes it so complex and truly unique. It leaves the
audience wondering: “How did these events truly play out?” and “How different would it be to
have Diane give her side of it all?”. Emotions also seem to factor into the recollection of such
events. For example, someone who knew about Diane’s life and her actions, but was not close
with her personally, may have recalled her behavior in a more harsh or blunt way. Those who

20. Smith 20
cared for her seem to defend her actions despite the toll it took on their family and relationships
and portray her reasoning and intentions as internal struggles and general unhappiness despite
the upbeat front she held firmly to. Diane’s daughter analyzed how stressful the whole scenario
must have been for her mother: “The complexity of lying about it, and the stress that that would
put on your life is a bit terrifying. It's a real lesson about birth control when you're having affairs,
if nothing else.” Her comical approach to something as serious as questioning a child’s paternity
shows that her relentless admiration for her mother’s spirit could not be shaken by such
shortcomings. Diane’s other children responded in a likewise manner as they may have been
disappointed, they loved her and defended her nonetheless.
Lastly, “truth” seems to be the most important contributing factor of all in the telling of
this story. Diane’s children knew very little as they were too young to understand their mother’s
actions at the time. Since Diane led a “double life” in a sense, each of her love interests only
knew as much of her story as they were a part of, or what she told them. Her friends and
coworkers knew even less, as they only knew what they had observed or learned from Diane
herself outside of the life she led at home. Her friends seem to know only the things about her
life that she told them, because of this ideal image of her life that she only wanted those around
her to see. Polley seems to believe that, by interviewing and publishing this documentary in the
first place, she can diminish this question of truth; while this is not the case, because her mother
concealed secrets that no one could have known about without questioning Diane herself. Diane
is described as a very lively and generally exciting person by those who loved her; however, the
one’s that were closest to her knew there was a troubled side to her that was heavily concealed
by her thrilling personality. It seems as though no one knew the truth behind her intentions and
actions except Diane herself. Those who loved her only knew the bits and pieces of her that she

21. Smith 21
wanted them to know: the bubbly personality that cared deeply for those around her. Harry
reminisced, “But the thing about Diane is that what was happening in her life at the moment was
what she talked about. As she talked, it felt like this was everything, that it was totally
confessional, and that you were hearing the full story of her life. But I realize now, it must have
been a part. So what I’m saying is she had secrets.” about the truth behind Diane’s behavior.
Harry felt that she kept things from her friends and family, therefore altering the truth behind
these events that her loved ones received. The fact that the largest problem that was faced
throughout the memoir was a lack of truth, or general ignorance of what could not be seen, leads
an audience to assume the first fundamental assumption, naturalism, best describes the Polley
family. Stories We Tell is a very admirable rendition of the life of not only Diane Polley, but also
the lives of the story tellers in connection to her.

22. Smith 22
Works Cited
Stories We Tell. Dir. Sarah Polley. National Film Board of Canada, 2012. DVD.

23. Smith 23
Second Sample from 1102
Baylee Smith
Instr. Ryan Strader
ENGL 1102
18 March 2016
Position Viewpoint: Should Parents be Required to Vaccinate Their Children?
Federal government-required vaccination is a concept commonly debated. The
controversy about whether or not vaccinations should be required comes down to one question:
Is the decision to vaccinate children a personal choice, or a necessity in order to maintain the
health and safety of the overall population? Vaccinations are a weakened version of a virus that
are created and administered in a controlled environment by healthcare professionals. They are
extensively researched, tested, and regulated by government agencies such as the Center for
Disease Control. Most people believe these vaccinations are a safe and reliable source of
preventative treatment that are generally given to children at a young age in order to protect them
from the many illnesses that the environment may unexpectedly accumulate. However, those
who oppose vaccinations have concerns that range from a debate over infringement upon human
rights, to general distrust in the federal government and its agencies that are regulating these
vaccinations. Despite these concerns, vaccines are a safe option in terms of preventative
treatment, which are largely pushed for by highly specialized, educated physicians for a simple
reason: that vaccines are the only known way to protect a child that is vulnerable in a world full
of preventable, yet potentially fatal diseases.
Children’s bodies are more than capable of handling the immune- stimulating antigens in
vaccines, and exposing them to the dangerous diseases running rampant in their environment has

24. Smith 24
been proven to be a far greater risk for their health. The Associate Science Editor for The
Huffington Post, Jacqueline Howard wrote “6 Dangerous Anti-Vaccination Arguments
Analyzed, Explained, and Shut Down”. Howard uses moral incentives to convince her audience,
anti-mandatory vaccination supporters, that vaccinations are a necessity, because “parents who
fail to vaccinate their kids may be jeopardizing the health of other children who are unable to get
the vaccine because they are too young or for other reasons.” (Howard 2). This gives parents a
reason to feel the need to vaccinate their children for the sake of others if they were against it
prior to reading this article. Another claim discussed by Howard is that vaccines would be more
than a child’s immune system could handle. Howard explains that this is untrue and references
an article by a pediatrician, Dr. Laurel Schultz, stating that “children are exposed to more
antigens in the environment every day than to those in all of their vaccinations combined.”
(Howard 2). This proves to inquiring parents that whether their children are vaccinated or not,
they will always be exposed to the harmful antigens in viruses. Therefore the safest approach to
protecting them will always be to do so in a controlled environment with the advice of medical
professionals.
The fine line between allowing a patient to make their own decision in regards to what is
best for their family and doing what is best for a child who is unable to make their own medical
decisions is difficult to decipher. This is the most extraordinary battle for every physician: the
balance between what is moral and what is ethical. McLeod’s argument, that physicians are
advocates for children who are not able to make their own decisions regarding their health, is
beneficial in promoting the pro-mandatory vaccination stance. The author asks her audience,
who are presumably physicians: “Does a parent have the right to expose their child to potentially
fatal diseases when it’s possible to prevent them?” (McLeod 1). Throughout the entry, McLeod

25. Smith 25
argues that not only do parents not have this right to deny their children preventative treatment,
but also that “physicians have a moral duty to ensure that these children get the preventative care
that they need and have the ability to be some of the strongest advocates for children’s health in
clinical and legal arenas.” (McLeod 1). In theory, this idea that physicians who, as highly
educated and medically experienced individuals, should be able to tell parents what is best for
their children’s health, unfortunately would not work from an ethical and legal standpoint. This
is because of patients’ rights and general hesitance by physicians to damage the relationship
between themselves and their patients for reasons such as “patient autonomy, one of the
cornerstones of modern medical ethics, and the desire to avoid paternalism.” (McLeod 2).
Ultimately, patients have the rights to their bodies as well as their children’s. However, it is the
job of a physician to analyze a situation and advocate for children at all costs; they must take
control of a situation that is out of hand and take action where they are legally capable.
The fact that vaccines have drastically decreased death rates, and even wiped out certain
diseases entirely is undeniable. The article, "A Multitude of Vaccine Benefits, Yet Controversy
Persists”, provides simple facts and studies given by reliable sources, such as the “large historical
study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released in November 2007,” whose
results show that “death rates for 13 diseases that can be prevented by childhood vaccinations
were at all-time lows in the United States.” (Mcneil 1). The New York Times author, Donald
Mcneil states his argument in a way that is biased because it clearly supports mandatory-
vaccinations, however he keeps excessively opinionated statements to a minimum and relies on
factual information to make a plausible argument. Mcneil makes an excellent point when he
states the reasoning behind the beliefs of those who oppose vaccinations, that “As diseases have
disappeared, generations have grown up without ever seeing the sickness and death they caused.”

26. Smith 26
(Mcneil 2). This shows that those who oppose his argument are simply misinformed due to their
lack of experience with such dangerous diseases and his purpose in composing this article is to
provide his audience with facts so they are left with the option to form their own opinion on the
topic.
The greatest question one may ask, as a mandatory vaccination supporter: how can we
educate those who are misinformed and end the vaccines controversy in order to provide children
with a healthier and safer environment? In the study "The Influence Of Provider Communication
Behaviors On Parental Vaccine Acceptance And Visit Experience”, published by the American
Journal of Public Health, researching physicians found that “Evidence suggests that improving
provider-parent communication about vaccines may increase parental vaccine acceptance.” (Opel
1). The study gives new and fresh information in explaining that a parent’s decision about
whether or not to vaccinate may be affected by the way they communicate with their doctor. The
physicians’ ultimate purpose in conducting this study was to “(1) determine the relationship
between provider initiation format and parent vaccine acceptance at visit’s end and whether
parental verbal resistance during the vaccine discussion or provider pursuit mediated this
relationship, and (2) determine the association of provider initiation and pursuit behaviors with
parental visit experience.” (Opel 1). The results of the study show that when a physician uses
diction that is more kind and understanding toward a parent, and creates the idea that vaccinating
a child was a conclusion the parent came to on their own, parents are more likely to give consent
for vaccinations. Though controversial, this study would provide part of a solution in ending the
backlash against vaccines.
The arguments made in support of government mandated vaccine requirement laws, are
strong in a sense that they cover a wide variety of claims, such as the government’s job to protect

27. Smith 27
the health, safety, rights of its citizens, as well as the fact that parents do not have the right to
deny their children preventative treatment given they are not capable of making such medical
decisions on their own. It is argued by the opposing viewpoint that the body’s natural immune
system rejects the antigens that it is exposed to in the environment without need for synthetic
immunizations. However, when injected with vaccinations, the body is exposed to a weaker
version of the antigen, which is far safer than encountering the fully functional, potentially
dangerous virus that is rampant in the environment. The general opposition and
misunderstanding of vaccines is caused by a generation that grew up without ever having to see
the harmful and potentially deadly effects of diseases due to the variety of immunizations that
were developed and administered in order to prevent them. In essence, those who do not know
what life would be like without vaccinations and do not understand them, are also those who
oppose them. Therefore, vaccinations are necessary and effective medical procedures with the
potential to save the lives those who undergo them and should be required by the government in
order to maintain the health and well-being of the population as a whole.

28. Smith 28
Works Cited
"6 Dangerous Anti-Vaccination Arguments Analyzed, Explained, and Shut Down."
Huffingtonpost.com. Ed. Jacqueline Howard. The Huffington Post, 15 Feb. 2015. Web.
22 Feb. 2016.
McLeod, Corinne. "Rising Anti-Vaccination Attitudes In The United States: A Plea For
Paternalism." Texas Public Health Journal 66.4 (2014): 8-10. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.
Mcneil, Donald G. "A Multitude of Vaccine Benefits, Yet Controversy Persists." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 28 Mar. 2008. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.
"The Influence Of Provider Communication Behaviors On Parental Vaccine Acceptance And
Visit Experience." American Journal Of Public Health 105.10 (2015): 1998-2004 7p.
CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.