Choosing which deliberation to attend for me was a no brainer. As a very passionate Immunology & Infectious Disease major, attending the deliberation titled “Conversation About Inoculation: Vaccine Decisions in an Increasingly Global World”, was the obvious choice for me. Having never attended a deliberation, I was unsure what to expect. To my surprise, I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. The discussion was very enlightening and I feel like I was able to contribute to the group. The deliberation asked questioned that I would never have thought of before. I could tell that the deliberation was well run because the moderators facilitated an intelligent dialogue. I was thrilled to see that my input was well received by my peers. We worked through three points on the spectrum of the topic. While these three topics all seemed very extreme, it was interesting to explore the pros and cons of each extreme.

I was extremely impressed by the conversation that developed, especially amongst a group of college kids. Part of the reason why I believe their deliberation went so splendidly was due to the fact that everyone attending had very strong medicinal backgrounds, whether that be from their family or their intended majors, and all the attendees had strong opinions on the subject. Because I felt so passionately about the topic, I actually found myself getting worked up over some of the approaches and conversation that ensued.

For their three approaches, right off the bat I identified with the approach I felt most strongly. Debating vaccination policy is such a controversial topic, but while examining the three different approaches to vaccination, I found each to be very thoughtful and feasible options. The most interesting part was how each approach as it was introduced, seemed to win over the overall group. However, upon intense questioning into each approach, extreme flaws came to the surface in each approach, and at the end of each approach time, the general consensus was dislike for the approach.

The three approaches were in a brief summary, call for government control requiring vaccination with criminal charges for not vaccinating, the second approach sought to give more individual freedoms, but allowed for civil law suits for pain and suffering from contracting a disease from an unvaccinated individual, and the third revolved around the idea of complete freedom of choice to be vaccinated or not. While most of the participants believed that vaccinations should be mandatory, the means by which they should be required was a gray area. Essentially what the debate came down to was not whether or not vaccinations were a good idea, but whether or not people have the choice to choose what is required to be put in their bodies or not.

Ultimately, we all decided that theoretically everyone should have the last say over what is mandated to be put in his or her body, however, when that choice infringes on the safety of others it crosses over into a very gray area. Someone made the comparison that being unvaccinated is like driving under the influence. Ultimately people have the choice, but that choice will endanger the precious lives of others, which is why it is made illegal. And I agree with that wholeheartedly.

While all of the attendees did have very strong opinions on vaccination requirements, I feel that the deliberation could have benefited from an individual who had a strong opposing argument. Overall, I was very impressed by the level of preparedness, research, professionalism, passion, and conversation that evolved from this deliberation.