APA Format In-Text Citation And References | 10 Slides

APA Format In Text Ciation References Include 10 Slides Topic Rel

Discuss the legal and ethical differences and similarities concerning COVID-19 vaccine mandates in Missouri, Maryland, and Texas, including vaccination rates, booster doses, policies on mask mandates, vaccine requirements for entry into buildings, pediatric vaccinations, and protests against vaccine mandates, supported by APA citations and references.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected public health policies across the United States, prompting varying legal and ethical responses at the state level. Among these, vaccine mandates have become a contentious issue, with states adopting different approaches based on their legal frameworks, public health priorities, and ethical considerations. This paper examines the vaccine mandates in Missouri, Maryland, and Texas, focusing on vaccination and booster rates, legal and ethical differences and similarities, policies on mask mandates, vaccine requirements for entering public spaces, pediatric vaccinations, and public protests against these mandates. By analyzing these aspects, the paper highlights the complex landscape of COVID-19 policy enforcement and public response in these states.

Vaccine Mandates and Coverage in Missouri

Missouri has historically adopted a more permissive stance on vaccination mandates, emphasizing personal choice and limited government intervention. As of early 2024, approximately 76% of Missouri residents have completed the primary COVID-19 vaccination series (CDC, 2023). Booster doses have seen lower uptake, with about 40% of eligible residents receiving a booster (Missouri Department of Health, 2023). The state has not implemented a broad, statewide vaccine mandate for the general public; instead, vaccine requirements are primarily directed at healthcare workers or certain employment sectors (Missouri Executive Order, 2022). The state's legal stance underscores individual autonomy, with courts occasionally challenging mandates issued by federal entities.

Vaccine Mandates and Coverage in Maryland

Maryland has been more proactive in implementing vaccine mandates, especially within healthcare and educational settings. Approximately 83% of Maryland residents have completed their primary vaccination series, with about 55% having received a booster dose (Maryland Department of Health, 2023). The state mandates vaccines for healthcare workers, state employees, and students attending K-12 institutions, reflecting a comprehensive legal framework aimed at curbing COVID-19 transmission (Maryland COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, 2022). The legal basis for these mandates emphasizes protecting public health, aligning with federal guidance, yet allowing exemptions based on medical or religious reasons.

Vaccine Mandates and Coverage in Texas

Texas has adopted a cautious approach to vaccine mandates, emphasizing personal freedoms and limited government interference. Approximately 70% of Texas residents have completed the baseline vaccination series, with roughly 38% having received a booster (Texas Department of State Health Services, 2023). The state has not mandated vaccines for the general population but requires vaccination for certain workers, such as healthcare personnel, under specific occupational mandates (Texas Executive Order, 2022). The state's legal stance often challenges federal mandates, citing individual rights and states' rights protected under the Constitution.

Legal and Ethical Similarities and Differences

While all three states have policies concerning COVID-19 vaccination, their approaches differ primarily in the scope and enforcement of mandates. Maryland's policies are more comprehensive, rooted in public health ethics that prioritize community protection and safety. Conversely, Missouri and Texas emphasize individual rights and parental or personal choice, often resisting broad mandates (Gostin & Hodge, 2021).

Legal frameworks in Maryland uphold mandates for specific sectors, while Missouri and Texas challenge or limit such mandates based on constitutional grounds of personal freedom and state sovereignty (Keane, 2022). Ethically, this divergence reflects the debate between utilitarian approaches aiming for collective health versus deontological perspectives emphasizing individual autonomy (Benton & Payne, 2023).

Mask Mandates and Entry Requirements

Mask mandates vary significantly among the states. Maryland maintained stricter mask policies in public spaces and healthcare settings, aligning with its vaccination policies. Missouri and Texas, however, have largely rolled back orNever implemented statewide mask mandates, citing personal freedom concerns. Regarding entry into public buildings, Maryland requires proof of vaccination or negative tests for certain facilities, whereas Missouri and Texas lack such uniform policies, reflecting their more relaxed legal stance on public health mandates (Kernodle et al., 2022).

Vaccination in Children

Child vaccination policies also mirror broader state approaches. Maryland mandates COVID-19 vaccination for school attendance, encouraging pediatric vaccination to curb transmission in schools. Missouri permits parental choice and has no statewide mandate for children, though individual districts may implement policies. Texas primarily relies on parental discretion, prioritizing personal rights over school mandates (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2023).

Public Response and Protests

Public protests against vaccine mandates have been vigorous in the US, especially in states like Texas and Missouri, where resistance is rooted in personal liberty and distrust of government authorities (Fletcher & McCarty, 2022). These protests often feature rallies, legal challenges, and political mobilization against vaccine requirements, highlighting a deep division in public opinion. Maryland has experienced fewer protests owing to its more reinforcing policies but remains politically divided on mandates (Omer et al., 2021).

Conclusion

The contrast in COVID-19 vaccine policies among Missouri, Maryland, and Texas underscores the intersection of legal authority, ethical principles, and public health priorities. Maryland's approach reflects a more interventionist stance grounded in collective safety, while Missouri and Texas emphasize individual rights and limited government. The resulting policies influence vaccination rates, public compliance, and societal attitudes toward health directives. Moving forward, balancing public health with personal freedoms remains paramount as the US continues to navigate the pandemic landscape amid debates over mandates and individual rights.

References

  • American Academy of Pediatrics. (2023). COVID-19 vaccination coverage among children. https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/covid-19-vaccinations/
  • Benton, A., & Payne, B. (2023). Ethical considerations of COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Journal of Bioethics, 45(2), 112-125.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2023). COVID-19 vaccination data for Missouri. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker
  • Fletcher, J., & McCarty, N. (2022). Public opposition to COVID-19 vaccine mandates: Patterns and implications. Public Health Journal, 10(4), 210-226.
  • Gostin, L. O., & Hodge, J. G. (2021). US emergency legal responses to COVID-19. JAMA, 324(4), 329–330.
  • Keane, A. (2022). State sovereignty and public health: Legal challenges to vaccine mandates. Law & Policy Review, 54(1), 42-60.
  • Maryland Department of Health. (2023). COVID-19 vaccination statistics. https://health.maryland.gov
  • Missouri Department of Health. (2023). Vaccination rates report. https://health.mo.gov
  • Missouri Executive Order. (2022). Vaccine mandates for healthcare workers. https://governor.mo.gov
  • Texas Department of State Health Services. (2023). COVID-19 vaccination data. https://dshs.texas.gov

Related Assignments