Lesson 5

We will begin to address the second Framing Question: What are the ethical issues involved in not vaccinating children? We will read an opinion essay from Scientific American that provides an ethical perspective on the decision to opt out of vaccinations and a letter from the children’s book author Roald Dahl that uses personal experience to speak about the dangers of not vaccinating. We will delineate and analyze the two pro-vaccination arguments, evaluate claims made by the authors, discuss the ethical issues and approaches, and continue to think about the impacts of vaccinating or not vaccinating.

Lesson Goals

Can I identify the claims, reasoning, and evidence used to develop arguments and explanations?
Can I recognize points of connection between two arguments and make objective and logical comparisons?

Texts

Core

- “Measles: A Dangerous Illness,” Roald Dahl, Roald Dahl Foundation, 1986
- “The Ethics of Opting Out of Vaccination,” Janet Stemwedel, Nature America, Inc., 2013
- “Vaccination and Free Will,” Jeffrey A. Singer, Reason Foundation, 2014

Materials

Tools

Question Sets

Editable Google Docs

Activity 1: Discuss – Read – Write

We will delineate and discuss a Scientific American argument, “The Ethics of Opting Out of Vaccination,” by Janet Stemwedel.

With a partner, review and compare your annotations for the article "The Ethics of Opting Out of Vaccination" by Janet Stemwedel, which you read for homework. As you discuss Stemwedel’s argument, use the Delineating Arguments Tool to clearly identify the author’s perspective, position, and the claims she is making.

Consider and discuss the following text-specific questions:

Stemwedel addresses her argument directly to parents, whom she views as "free-riders." Why might she have framed the argument this way?
What claims does Stemwedel make about why parents should have their children vaccinated? Cite details from the text to support your answer.
What evidence does Stemwedel use to support her claims?
How does Stemwedel counter the following parental argument?
Unvaccinated kids are not free-riders on the vaccinated mass of society because they actually get diseases like chickenpox, pertussis, and measles (and are not counting on avoiding the other diseases against which people are routinely vaccinated).
What evidence does she use?
Stemwedel uses a personal appeal to strengthen her argument, by beginning it with the story of her daughter’s visit to an urgent care facility. How does this appeal affect your reading of the argument?
How does Stemwedel organize her reasoning in the argument?

Compare your responses to these questions and your delineations of Stemwedel’s argument with those of another reading pair. Discuss how Stemwedel’s argument has affected you as a reader.

Activity 2: Read – Discuss – Write

We will consider more closely the sentences written by Janet Stemwedel to express her argument.

Access the Mentor Sentence Handout 2 for the Stemwedel argument. Use the questions to read the three mentor sentences closely.

Select one of the three mentor sentences you find interesting and paraphrase it. Using that mentor sentence as a guide, compose your own sentence that presents a claim about your current position on mandatory vaccinations.

Write down your paraphrase and your new claim sentence in your Mentor Sentence Journal. You might use either of these sentences in your own writing for the Section Diagnostic or Culminating Task.

Activity 3: Read – Write – Discuss

We will read and annotate the article “Measles: A Dangerous Illness” by Roald Dahl.

Step 1

Individually, access Roald Dahl’s “Measles” A Dangerous Illness” on the Roald Dahl website under the heading Timeline. As you read, annotate the 1986 letter to parents. Then, use the Delineating Arguments Tool to clearly identify Dahl’s perspective, position, and the claims he is making.

Consider the following text-specific questions:

Roald Dahl addresses his argument as a letter to British parents. Why might he have framed the argument this way?
What claims does Dahl make about why parents should have their children immunized? Cite details from the text to support your answer.
What evidence does Dahl use to support his claims?
How does Dahl counter the claim that there are risks for children to be vaccinated? What evidence does he use?
Dahl uses an emotional appeal to strengthen his argument, by telling the personal story of his daughter, Olivia. How does this appeal affect your reading of the argument?

Compare your responses to these questions and your delineations of Dahl’s argument with those of your partner from the previous activity. Discuss how Olivia’s story has affected you as a reader.

As a class, compare the two pro-vaccination arguments you have read in terms of their perspectives, positions, and approaches to argumentation.

Step 2

In your Mentor Sentence Journal, write down a mentor sentence from the Dahl argument that you find interesting or powerful. Paraphrase what Dahl is saying. Using that mentor sentence as a guide, compose your own sentence based on your current position on mandatory vaccinations. You might use either of these sentences in your own writing for the Section Diagnostic or Culminating Task.

Activity 4: Read – Write – Discuss

We will evaluate claims and evidence presented by Stemwedel or Dahl in terms of their perspective, credibility, and overall soundness.

Individually, select one claim or counterclaim you have identified in the pro-vaccination arguments presented by either Stemwedel or Dahl. Identify the claim and the evidence used to support it in the text of the argument.

Use an Evaluating Ideas Tool to evaluate the claim and its supporting evidence, as follows:

Guiding Question: Write down the claim in the "guiding question" row of the tool.
Attend to Details: Write down key details from the supporting evidence presented in the argument.
Analyze Perspective: Analyze how these details suggest the author’s perspective.
Evaluate Ideas: Evaluate the accuracy, credibility, and relevance of ideas represented by the claim and evidence.
Evaluate the Text: Evaluate whether you find the claim to be believable and convincing based on your analysis of the text.

Join a discussion team with students who have evaluated the same argument, but different claims. Compare your evaluations of specific claims and evidence. Based on the analyses of its claims, determine your overall evaluations of the argument as believable and convincing.

Share your discussion team’s evaluations with the whole class.

Activity 5: Discuss

We will analyze the claims and arguments made by Stemwedel and Dahl in terms of ethical issues and approaches.

Using your Delineating Arguments Tools from the previous activities, compare the claims made by Stemwedel and Dahl as they relate to the Framing Question:

What are the ethical considerations involved in not vaccinating children?

Develop several comparative observations you can share with the class, and share these in a class discussion.

As a class, use the following questions from the Analyzing Ethical Issues Question Set to further analyze and discuss the two pro-vaccination arguments:

Philosophical Issues and Approaches:

The Common Good: In what ways does the argument reflect consideration of the common good?
Individual Rights and Personal Liberty: In what ways does the argument reflect consideration of individual rights or personal liberty?

Public Health Issues and Controversies:

Mandates and Objections: In what ways does the argument reflect controversies between governmental mandates and citizen objections?

Activity 6: Read – Write

For homework, we will read and annotate “Vaccination and Free Will,” an opinion piece published in reason that advocates for the rights of individuals and against coercive vaccination mandates.

For homework, access the article "Vaccination and Free Will" in the Unit Reader. Read and annotate the argument presented by Jeffrey Singer, and answer the following text-specific questions in your Learning Log:

What is the author’s profession, and what impact does this have on his perspective and position? What impact might this have on his audience?
Which sentence best captures Singer’s overall position? What do you notice about where it is located?
What are some of the supporting claims that Singer makes? What evidence does he provide to support these claims? Cite details from the text to support your answer.
How does Singer’s argument and reference to "free-riders" contrast with Stemwedel’s "The Ethics of Opting Out of Vaccination"? Cite evidence from both texts to support your answer.
How does Singer structure the reasoning in his argument? Cite evidence from the text to support your answer.

Write new or interesting words you encounter in your Vocabulary Journal.

Write down at least one sentence that is interesting or that represents a strong example of a language concept you have studied in your Mentor Sentence Journal.