The Guilfordian
February 20, 2015 1 7
OPINION
WWW.GUILFORDIAN.COM/OPINION
GUILFORDIAN@GUILFORD.EDU
Get rid of loopholes for vaccinations
BY LILY LOU
Staff Writer
A disease once eliminated in the United
States has reemerged. Last year there were 644
measles cases in the U.S., and this January
102 cases have already emerged.
The best way to prevent
outbreaks is through
state requirements on
vaccinations. Before the
measles vaccine existed,
almost every person in
the United States was
infected with it before
age 15.
“(Vaccines are) the
reason some of the most
lethal diseases have been
eradicated from the
United States,” said first-
year Darby Kozen.
However, according to The Atlantic, one
out of every eight American children have not
received all of the medically recommended
vaccinations. Anti-vaxxers often argue for
natural infections as the best method of
immunity.
“In the world of science, it is quite well
known that infections in early life protect
against various cancers in later life,” said
Neil Miller, director of the Thinktwice
Global Vaccine Institute, in an email to the
Guilfordian. “Vaccinations (have) denied
babies opportunities to become naturally
infected, and with this reduction in exposure
to disease there was a tradeoff ~ increased
rates of cancer.”
This tradeoff may be worth it because of
the high expense of catching these infections.
“The problem is that natural infection
comes with complications,” said Associate
Professor of Immunology Cynthia Leifer.
“There are severe later consequences that
can occur. In measles, children can continue
to have several seizures, and they can have
severe brain swelling problems that occur 7
to 10 years later.
"Measles is getting all of the attention
right now, but there are other childhood
diseases that might even be worse, such as
polio. People who are not vaccinating for
measles are also not vaccinating for mumps,
rubella, whooping cough or polio.”
Vaccinations are not only important for
individuals; they also promote the health of
a community.
“The real problem with most of these
diseases is that there always is a
contingent of the population that
can’t get vaccines because they’re
immunosuppressed,” said Michele
Malotky, department chair and
associate professor of biology.
"So, those people depend on the
rest of society to get the vaccine,
which is something called herd
immunity.”
In the case of measles, if 92
-95 percent of a community is
vaccinated, then outbreaks will
end because there will be few
to spread the virus to. However,
local outbreaks, such as the 2014
outbreak in an Amish community
in Ohio, can occur.
“People who don’t want to be
vaccinated tend to live close together,”
said Part-Time Lecturer of Biology Randall
Hayes. “So, even if you’re above 95 percent
as an average across the whole country, in
that local area, you can easily drop below
95 percent of the local area and have a local
outbreak.”
Getting vaccinated should be required in
every state and exemptions should only be
for medical reasons, rather than religious and
personal reasons; only Mississippi and West
Virginia have eliminated these exemptions.
“This measles outbreak shows us that
states with lax requirements for vaccination
have the most susceptible residents and the
most measles cases,” said Bill Moss, professor
at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health and director of Epidemiology
at International Vaccine Access Center.
Removing personal and religious
exemptions would increase vaccination
rates across the country and prevent further
outbreaks of viral infections.
“By getting vaccinated, we are caring for
each other and our larger communities,” said
Gal Adam Spinrad, a blogger at Love, Beauty
& Abundance in an email to The Guilfordian.
“It goes beyond doing what our doctor
recommends — it is a commitment to each
other and the wellbeing of all of us, not just
the most fortunate among us who are blessed
with good health and good healthcare.”
Measles Cases in the United States
I I 0 Cases
IHI U4 Cases
m 5-9 Cases
10-19 Cases
Hi 20+ Cases
Staff Editorial
Donor-Student connections needed
The foimtain in front of Founders. The wall around the baseball field. The fish tank in the
Quakeria. These are a few examples of times when Guilford College has received generous
donations for very specific purposes, purposes that, quite frankly, don’t address the true needs
of this institution and don’t reflect the voices of this community.
However, we at The Guilfordian aren’t writing this editorial with the intention of playing the
blame game. Rather, we hope to encourage better communication between our community
and the donors who so graciously support it.
Philanthropy at Guilford, as with most colleges, is about finding a balance between the
needs of the school and the unique interests of the donor.
In an email interview. Associate Director of Philanthropy Joey Wilkerson compared donors
picking a project to fund with the process of selecting a niajor, stating, “We have many majors
to choose from, but ultimately students ... tend to gravitate towards one or two that spark
passion and interest. The same is true with donors.”
Wilkerson outlined the five major areas of a $15 million fundraising campaign the
Advancement Office is currendy working on: Annual Funds, Student Support, Faculty
Support, Academic Programs and The Campus Community. Of these five, the Annual Funds
caategory allows the most versatile use of donated funds, but we encourage donors to look into
all five options before making a choice. All of these categories are areas in which donations can
truly make a difference for this community.
As for what students can do, the two main ways students can connect with donors are
scholarship recipients writing thank-you letters and students attending events where they can
spend time with donors. We hope that our fellow students are talmg advantage of these
opportunities to both show their gratitude for the funding they have received and to make
real connections with our donors. Getting to know the people who support this institution is
a vital part of the communication process.
In addition to these options, there is another way for students, and donors, to connect with
each other in the philanthropy process: the Student Advisory Council student philanthropy
group.
In 2013, The Guilfordian published a letter to the Board of Trustees detaUing a proposition
to create the Student Advisory Council which would, through collaboration with offices like
Advancement and Student Affairs, allow students greater access to donors and the ability to
put forward a more student-based perception of what is needed on campus.
The SAC was intended to bridge the gap between students and donors, but a lack of
continued student involvement has left the project with little momentum. If you are interested
in revitalizing the Council, we encourage you to contact the leaders of Community Senate.
This editorial, and the suggestions therein, are merely the beginning of what we hope will
be a continuing dialogue between students and donors.
So, students, please raise your voices not to admonish, but to respectfully advise.
Donors, thank you for all your generous support of our school. We appreciate all you have
given our college and hope that you will allow us to help direct your philanthropy towards the
needs that we, as residents of this campus, are uniquely capable of recognizing. We thank you
for your interest in and support of this place we hold dear; now let us work together to make.
it a better place for those who will join our community in the future.
Reflecting Guilford College's core Quaker values, the topics and content of Staff
Editorials ARE chosen through consensus of all 14 editors and one faculty adviser
OF The Guilfordian's Editorial Board.
Euthanasia: a slippery slope
to be approached cautiously
BYAIPERI
lUSUPOVA
Staff Writer
Seventeen years ago, attempts to legalize
euthanasia in the United States began in Oregon.
A domino effect shifted forward, as states such
as Washington, Vermont, Montana and New
Mexico established acts that
allowed physician-assisted
dying, while countries like
Canada strictly prohibited
euthanasia.
“The prohibition on
t physician-assisted dying
1^ infringes the right to life,
^ liberty and security of the
person in a manner that is
not in accordance with the
principles of fundamental
justice,” reported the
Supreme Court of Canada
in The New York Times,
banning euthanasia for terminally ill patients.
Contrary to Canada, some parts of the
United States made euthanasia one of its
citizens’ privileges.
In some states of America, the country of
radical individualism, euthanasia is a right, and
it is thought to be respected on the level of any
other civil right. But it shouldn’t be.
However, some hold a different opinion.
“I believe that a patient or individual should
have the right to determine their health care plan
based on their personal beliefs and decisions,”
said Melissa Howdeshell, a registered nurse at
Moses Cone Health Hospital. “If a patient
chooses to utilize euthanasia in the plan of care,
regardless of their diagnosis, we, as health care
providers, should be allowed to honor their
wishes with dignity and respect.”
The American individualism and privacy have
created notions of euthanasia being an optimal
decision to end the suffering of themselves and
those who care for them.
“Life is worth living, of course, but when
it comes to a point where living is psychically
unbearable, the person should be allowed a
quick death,” said first-year Rashad Clark.
Radical individualism has pervaded the
culture, so that suffering is no longer treated as
a normal state of life, but a burden.
“If I was suffering, my family was suffering
taking care of me and I could not financially
pay for medical treatment, I should have the
right to choose to be euthanized,” said senior
Byron Hamilton.
Torn by religious, ethical and moral
arguments, a few people insist that euthanasia
is an unacceptable means of pain management.
“I don’t think any human has the right to
take another human’s life, no matter the crime,”
said sophomore Taryn McFadden.
First-year Sarah Hammood added that
euthanasia might be dangerous for terminally
ill patients.
“It shouldn’t be permitted because, if it was
an option, people who are sick will chose that
option when they are weak and vulnerable,”
said Hammood.
And, others find it important to treat the
terminally ill with dignity according to their
faith.
“Morality of faith depends on individual’s
perception,” said Sabo Ameh, a registered nurse
of the Medical Surgical Intensive Care Unit at
Moses Cone Health Hospital. “No matter what
it is, every human being needs to die in dignity.”
According to North Carolina’s professional
standards of medical institutions and the
treatment process, euthanasia or assisted suicide
is not legitimate.
“If you have some type of terminal illness,
we apply a palliative approach to it,” said
Teresa Crite, a registered nurse and Sabo’s
colleague at the Moses Cone Health Hospital.
“We give them sedatives and pain medicine to
make them die peacefully, but we never give
them lethal doses of medicine so that they die
immediately.”
Since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld several
assisted suicide laws, today, the United States has
hit the “social slippery slope” argument, which
asserts that acceptance of one sort of euthanasia
will gradually lead to other. According to the
latest statistics, the U.S. has seen a 350 percent
increase in physician-assisted suicide.
Thereupon, every act that supports euthanasia
will expand its boundaries and cause it to become
a common practice. One life taken by euthanasia
will inevitably lead to a chain of related events if
we do not question its side effects.