Measles vaccination, a highly controversial topic in America today, has placed the concerns of the government and its people at the highest levels. It's a phenomenon that has pervaded pretty quickly across borders, both literally and figuratively. Speaking as a vaccinated individual, it left me stunned but, more importantly, particularly curious as to why people would be against a treatment that can spare them potentially fatal and highly contagious pain. However, after reading Bruenig's article with genuine curiosity, I like to think that I have gained a much clearer understanding of the opposition. Bruenig's statement in favor of the opposition, on the one hand, seems to have an understandable and logical explanation that could still be somewhat debated. Based on the article, there appears to be a legitimate concern that goes beyond a mere personal choice to get vaccinated. However, although both sides make very rational points, there are still dark areas within the argument. This particular article, written by Elizabeth Bruenig, has helped shed light on the cultural and political change that has taken place, or is currently taking place today, but more specifically, it focuses on broader social issues that have not received the attention that they deserve among individuals, including myself. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay As the article establishes, both sides are clearly adamant in their views on an individual's right to vaccinations. Bruenig, however, addresses both topics by juxtaposing the values ​​that each country, both the United States and Sweden, upholds among its people and its government. However, serious health cases such as measles vaccinations still contain ambiguity in the specifics of that particular area. While the author does a relatively good job of summarizing each topic and outlining the blueprint of the issue, she could have provided statistics/data from the Swedish anti-vaccination types. Further elaboration of Swedish statistics allows the public to form an opinion based on facts and not on potential bias. The author presents data from some “groupings of anti-vaccination types around certain geographic points” to illustrate a lack of unanimity and perhaps “cooperation” across the United States on the issue. However, it provides no explanation as to why such anti-vaccinations exist in those areas. The foundation of his argument falters because he does not address the other side accordingly. He concludes in writing, “compare the research on Americans who resist vaccination and Swedes who voluntarily sign up for optional vaccines, and it appears that anti-vaccination advocates are the most American of us all” (Bruenig). While Bruenig's data may be true, the evidence in favor of the other party, Sweden, would make his claim much stronger and more reliable. By comparing statistics based on a common goal, his argument may be more credible to his audience. Bruenig also highlights the influence of political ideals that can be a factor in shaping an individual's decision for vaccinations. As American citizens know, individual rights are fundamental to life. Since individuals have freedom within their rights, conflicts can easily arise when taken in perspective within the social concept. This serves, however, as a further basis for the author's argument. American freedom by definition is based on the idea ofself-confidence and personal independence. However, more often than not, Bruenig argues, the personal freedom to not get vaccinated puts the health and well-being of other individuals at risk. Bruenig further argues that American ideals such as “consumer primacy, individualism, self-determination, and a dim, almost cynical view of common goods such as public health, encourage “anti-vaccination” individualism” (Bruenig). American individualism and the laisezz-faire approach can certainly make American citizens more self-righteous and perhaps even unaware of the needs and concerns of others. This, consequently, certainly poses a grave concern in the exercise of civil rights over a deadly issue like measles. This raises the question, however: Is America's need for independence an obstacle to achieving safety and security for all? Does the emphasis on American individualism undermine the value of other human beings? In other words, is it acceptable and appropriate for self-interest to prevail over social responsibility in a case like this? Which of the others is more valuable? Raising this question certainly made me more aware of the gravity of the situation, but more specifically, interested in the basis of each side's arguments. Sweden, Bruenig argues, by contrast, takes a much more liberal approach to its politics. Studies show that there appears to be a higher percentage of people in Sweden who have chosen to vaccinate themselves and their children. Bruenig supports this statement with the findings of Research Ronnerstrand whose studies were based on a number of factors such as “age, sex, gender, education and even level of concern about an H1N1 pandemic, meaning that the decision to be vaccinated or not they cannot be confused, for example, by a person's individual level of panic or knowledge of infectious diseases” (Bruenig). This knowledge is critical to establishing the Swedish people's commitment to their government. Bruenig states: “Trust requires mass coordination of efforts, which in turn requires constant trust – something that neoliberal politics in America vastly underestimates” (Bruenig). Bruenig's appeal to Swedish culture suggests that the issue at hand trumps the individual choice and personal ideals that are so heavily propagated in American culture; the problem lies in the relationship between the government's ideals and its people. This idea raises skepticism among individuals who question the government's motives, intentions, and responsibilities. It would stand to reason that because Americans, unlike Sweden, rely heavily on a capitalist system deeply driven by competition and human consumption, the needs of others might sometimes be overlooked and ignored. While the arguments on both sides are clear and reasonable, Bruenig, however, could have addressed, or explored, several topics that would have provided more perspectives to his readers. It is clear that he speaks with a bias towards Sweden, but in doing so he may cause his audience to question the information, or lack thereof, he provides. First, an issue that is so commonly talked about as a defense against vaccinations: the religious rights of the individual. It highlights America's need for independence as the only defense against medical protection, however, it could have addressed, in depth, the concerns and consequences for those who staunchly support their religion. Those who are strongly religious see vaccinations as a violation of their practice. Bruenig could have addressed their defense/reasoning and even proposed possible solutions to their concerns instead.