Nicole Cox

PHIL 1250
TR 1-2:20
Dr. Jane Drexler
Signature Assignment

Vaccinations
Introduction:

This analysis is based off an article titled, State should

tighten laws requiring vaccinations, by Carol Spackman
Moss. At the bottom of the article is says, Carol Spackman
Moss represents District 37, Holladay, in the Utah House of
Representatives and prior to 2001 she taught English for 33
years at Olympus High. In the article she tells of how the
measles was brought back to Utah by a student who visited
Poland without being immunized. The kids spread it and it just
domino effected in the school district and on the health
departments. Moss feels that it would be better to tighten the
rules on being exempt from immunizing. It was written to
those who already are inclined to think the laws should be
tightened, but not quite convinced; and thus she endeavors to
persuade.

Issue:

Should we further limit a persons ability to be exempt from

immunizations?

Conclusion:

Yes we should.

Burdon of Proof:

The burden of proof is most likely on her because she is

wanting to tighten laws and most people generally dont like
that. Also, some people feel that it is taking away rights, as
she mentions in the article, so those people would need some
convincing.
Premises/Subpremises:
Her main premises are that (1) there was an
outbreak of the measles due to the lack of being immunized
(2) because there was an outbreak, there has been a dominoeffect to the schools and community in a negative way: it has
cost a lot for schools and health departments, and not being
immunized has caused a great health risk to the community. It
has affected teachers and students in their work and
schoolwork
Relevance of Premises:
Both premises are relevant because they indicate
(1) what happened when there seemed to be a flaw in the law
regarding immunizations and then (2) how it affected others.
Both are important in deciding whether to put more laws into
effect.
Hidden Premises:

If you look at the diagram and/or read the article, youd see
that I added a missing premise. After Moss discussed the
current law about immunizations, she transitioned to the laws

in other states. So a hidden premise is that laws in other

states are comparable and should be taken into account. The
article is talking about the Utah laws, not the other states.

Page Two:
Diagram

Page Three: Responding With Fallacies

May 2, 2015

Dear Carol Spackman Moss,

I read your article about tightening laws in order to require
vaccinations. Why would you even consider telling us that we should give up
all our rights? You dont want me to be able to practice my religion? If the
Pope says I shouldnt, then there really isnt any question; I wont, and I dont
care what you think. If we tighten these laws then we will be anti-religious,
and if we are anti-religious, we will be Satanic, and if we are Satanic, we may
as well live in anarchy, and if we live in anarchy then we will all be
barbarians fighting to survive and find food and shelter.
And besides, I dont think its okay to use Mississippi as an example of
other states laws because its against the law to teach others what
polygamy is there and if they have laws like that, we definitely shouldnt
listen to them.
Like you said, we have had personal exemption laws in Utah since
1988, and so its what we should do. I hope youll re-think your position on
the matter.

Nicole Cox

Page Four: Responding For Real

Dear Carol Spackman Moss,
I had the opportunity to read your article about how we should tighten our
laws regarding personal exemptions for vaccinations. You shared your
experience with your daughter, and explained the effects on the health
departments, school district, and community pretty thoroughly. It was also
good to get some insight on the current Utah law and contrasting it with the
rest of the United States as a whole.
I like how you included the example of the measles and your personal
experience example, then used statistics and facts from people outside of
your personal life to have more variety in your evidence. It gives a wellrounded picture of the effects. I also like how you mentioned an opposing
view, the one where some people feel like their rights are being violated
when restricting the exemptions. It shows you listen to the opposing
arguments or at least acknowledge them, which is big. I think that it was
important that you brought up the cost, because that is something that
needs to be taken into account.
Something that does stick out to me is that where it explains how in 2001
the Utah Legislature tried to make it easier to be exempt from vaccinations,
there is not any explanation as to why the reader should believe that it is not
a good idea; aside from the fact that you dont think it should be easier. Im
looking for more of the why. Also, where it says what the other states laws
consist of and regarding what, I did not understand your position on the
matter because some of those reasons to be exempt are seemingly
legitimate so I was waiting for a response to them; but it almost seemed that
that paragraph was more counter-evidence to your claim.
Since we do live in the U.S. under the protection of the Constitution
that protects religious practices and beliefs, why would that not be a
legitimate reason for exemption? What line would you draw as to what are
good enough reasons to be exempt and what are not? Any special cases? If
medical, religious, moral, and other personal beliefs are the reasons that
some people are exempt from the immunizations, then those really are some
important rights that should be protected under the Constitution. That
document ultimately determines all legislature, and if you are wanting to
make more laws, especially ones that others feel compromise their rights, it
would probably be important to respond to their concerns directly. Otherwise
it doesnt seem like a lot of people are going to agree, thus more laws would
not happen.So I need more convincing on that. I see negative effects of when
people are not vaccinated, but where is the line going to be drawn? When is
it okay to be exempt, because surely there must be some times when it
should be acceptable?

Thank you for your thoughtful perspective on the matter, now I would ask
you to consider my words as food for thought.

Nicole Cox

Page Five: Reflecting on Your Own Argument

My counter argument is pretty good, I wouldnt necessarily say its
strong though. It consists mainly of questions. I am respectfully questioning
her argument with things that Im considering. I used the source that
ultimately determines all legislature as an argument, which is great because
shes wanting to make more laws and briefly talks about how some people
feel that doing that would be compromising their rights and she sort of
shrugged it off. So I think bringing up the Constitution really challenges her
position in a way that shed really need to be convincing.
Even though I feel that using questions in my argument is good,
because then she doesnt feel attacked, I also think it may be a weakness.
This is because if Im asking questions, Im not directly rebutting her
argument. So its a strength if Im looking to not make her mad, but its a
weakness if Im trying to be direct and persuasive.
Critiquing my own argument, Id say that aside from the indirectness of
the questions, I need more premises other than bringing up the Constitution.
Even though the Constitution is a really good thing to challenge her with, it
would bring my whole argument down if she could effectively respond to it. I
wouldnt have an argument. So Id definitely say that I need more premises
to back up my argument. Maybe take out questions and put more
statements to make the message more concrete and solid.
Knowing my own thinking on the matter, I can also say that if I full out
disagreed with the author, I would have been able to more effectively rebut
her argument and come up with a counter-argument better. However, I
mostly agreed with her, besides what I had already argued back at her. So
when there arent strong feelings involved, its definitely more of a struggle.

Page Six: Identification/Explanation of Fallacies

Strawman-

She wasnt really suggesting we give up all of our rights, but

when I say that she sounds like shes a horrible person and of course I
wouldnt want to agree with her! Then twisting and magnifying a passing
comment about religion to be blown out of proportion makes her look
intolerant of religious practices, which she hardly addresses at all in the
article.

False Appeal to Authority-Fails 1st Condition-

I suggest that the

Pope is all-knowing about the immunization topic and simply because he is
the Pope, he is an expert. But, in fact, he is not a genuine expert at all.

Slippery Slope-

I went from one extreme to the next leading to an awful

idea that would truly be undesirable but also would not necessarily be the
result of changing the laws.

Ad Hominem/ Red Herring-

I tried discounting one of the states

credibility and telling her not to listen to their opinion by saying one of their
laws are dumb. But the polygamy law is not even relevant to the issue, so I
am red herring also.

Appeal to tradition-

In the end of Mosss argument she said that we

have had the laws for so long, but, regardless of that, we should change the
law. I used one of her arguments against her but its a fallacy. Just because
its been the way it is for a while, does not necessarily mean anything. Its an
empty argument.

Page Seven: Copy of transcript or article

State should tighten laws requiring vaccinations
By Carol Spackman Moss
Published April 30, 2011 1:01 am

Two weeks ago I received a call from my adult daughter with an unusual
question: "Do you have my childhood immunization records?" She told me
Skyline High teachers had to show proof of having had the MMR vaccine or
take a blood test at the Salt Lake Valley Health Department to see if they had
immunity to measles.
Olympus High teachers had to do the same or be placed on administrative
leave until April 25. This action was necessitated when an Olympus High
student without immunization contracted measles on a trip to Poland. From
this student, the number of confirmed cases has grown to nine, but the
consequences are even greater.
Shortly after the first confirmed case, 25 Olympus High teachers, including
two pregnant teachers, and dozens of students were ordered to stay home
from April 18 through April 25. Additional infected children from the same
family necessitated teachers and students staying home from three other
Granite district schools.
Hiring substitute teachers has so far cost Granite School District $8,600.
Furthermore, administrators, registrars and school nurses have spent dozens
of hours, after school and two Saturdays, locating and notifying all students
without immunizations in two high schools, one junior high, and one
elementary school.
Many teachers, including my daughter, had the blood test, only to discover
they were not immune, necessitating their being vaccinated. If not for spring
break last week, many more teachers and students would have been out of
school, just weeks before hundreds of students were scheduled to take
standardized academic tests, including advanced placement tests which
determine college credit.
This measles outbreak has been enormously costly for state and local health
departments which administer blood tests, provide vaccines, oversee
isolation of confirmed cases and educate the public. Because of recent
budget cuts, the unanticipated cost of this outbreak further strains their
resources.

The Utah Department of Health reports its cost from April 5 to April 25 at
$75,000. Salt Lake Valley Health Department cites its costs to date at more
than 2,200 employee hours and $107,000.
Beyond the cost and public health risk are the fear and anger of thousands of
people who feel their rights have been compromised by a few.
Although much of the anger is directed at those few, it is also directed at
state laws that heavily favor a parent's right to opt out of a mandatory law
over that parent's responsibility to protect all children from serious, even
fatal, communicable diseases, especially those who cannot be vaccinated
because of compromised immune systems
In 2001 the Utah Legislature tried to make it even easier for parents to be
exempt from immunization requirements by having exemption forms
available at public schools. Groups like the Eagle Forum and the Church of
Scientology lobbied heavily for the change. Fortunately, the bill did not pass.
Current law says parents must go to their local health department to get the
form where they are counseled on the risks of withholding immunizations.
Although all 50 states have legislation mandating specified vaccines for
children, all states grant exemptions for medical reasons, and all but two,
Mississippi and West Virginia, grant religious exemptions. Twenty states,
including Utah, allow philosophical exemptions for those who object to
immunizations because of personal, moral or other beliefs.
Although the personal exemption has been Utah law since 1988, I believe, as
a result of this serious outbreak and its far-reaching consequences, the Utah
Legislature should re-examine this policy to see if it adequately protects the
rights of our children and teachers to work and attend public school in a safe
and healthy environment.
Carol Spackman Moss represents District 37, Holladay, in the Utah House of
Representatives. Prior to 2001 she taught English for 33 years at Olympus
High.