Immunity—a tantalizing idea filled with ironies and unfulfilled
promises. The prospect of the sheer power behind immunity is enough to drive
any reasonable person insane with curiosity, however with the immense benefits
comes a fatal flaw. Eula Biss, a new mother, begins her novel with enrapturing
tales and gossip from worried mothers surrounding what seems too good to be
true: inoculation. Many worry this promising immunity will leave their child
suffering from its unknown fatal flaw and refuse to risk subjecting their child
to vaccinations, however others still argue any chance at immunity is
worthwhile. Eula Biss subjects her readers to fantasies and neighborhood gossip
in order to convey the magnitude of a mother’s decision to inoculate her child.
The most
powerful comparison to represent a mother’s fear stems from the mythological
tale of Achilles. Biss draws upon a mother’s fear and determination to provide
for her child the best life she can in order to demonstrate the emotional
significance behind blindly trusting recommendations to subject her child to a “magical
serum” promising immunity. Everyone knows the time-old tale of Achilles, and
how his immunity came with a fatal flaw that eventually cost him his life. However,
Biss chooses to focus on the mother’s fears and motivations more so than the
eventual outcome to explain why she may be motivated to opt for risky
investments—such as vaccinations in this case. A mother will do everything in
her power to prevent fate from overpowering work ethic; that being said, like
Achilles’ mother dunked him in the River Styx, mothers across the globe take
the same plunge and inoculate their children.
Even
more, Eula Biss supplies countless gossip and real worries from her neighbors
thus proving how hesitant and divided mothers were on these new inoculations.
They must begin to weigh the positives and the negatives if they wish to fully
understand what benefits and consequences come with this promised “immunity.”
So many mothers experienced the horrific side effects of inoculation, and
without seeing the long-term outcome, it is difficult to subject their child to
future inoculations since the risk did not pay off. How were they to know if
the vaccinations truly provided immunity rather than cause physical distress to
their children as mentioned? While scientific research has supported
inoculation as more studies have surfaced with proven immunity and little consequences,
mothers pioneering and subjecting their children were faced with a dark tunnel
that may or may not have a light at the end of it.
Through
her descriptive tales and effective comparisons, Biss conveys to the general
public the emotional turmoil mothers went through before diving into
inoculation. Vaccinations were said to be beneficial, but how could they trust
this serum promising something too good to be true while living with the
terrible side effects? Inoculation now appears to be an immediate decision—something
tried and proven to offer immunity with little side effects—however mothers
still worry for their young and still are weary towards anything promising such
a tantalizing offer. They must question whether they really can trust the research
now and are willing to offer their child armor against fate, or decide that the
potential of a fatal flaw outweighs any benefits.
While reading, I also thought the way Biss compared Achilles to vaccinating a child was very interesting. Achilles' mother wanted him to live forever so she tried making him "immune" to harm and in a similar way, Biss (and hopefully every mother) wants what is best for her child and would do anything to keep it safe. This is where the debate between people who want vaccinations for their child and the people that don't begins and it probably will never end.
ReplyDeleteBut the debate for wearing contacts (and there are risks to wearing contacts) never started, and no one is talking about hearing aids. To say the only reason the debate happens was because of fear and love for the child is oversimplification. You could write a whole book about this. (and someone did!)
DeleteI feel like the debate Biss presents between mothers that support vaccinations and mothers that do not can be observed in many other areas of life. The paranoia that often leads some of these women to question vaccines also tends to lead them to question the ingredients in their child's food or chemicals that can be found in formula. This division between mothers really shows at its root a difference in parenting style and not just a difference of opinion.
ReplyDeleteYes! Yes! Yes!
DeleteThe debate it's a whole hot mess of emotions, sentiments, misinformations, paranoia, concerns of government invasion in private life,...
If science backs up vaccinations as being safe, and some groups are still against it, it brings up a bigger issue of trust. Why wouldn't a mother trust research that has been proving the safety of vaccinations? Maybe she is surrounded by other mothers that have a similar view (creating a herd effect in itself) that persuades her, maybe she has a hard time believing media, or maybe she doesn't think that research can fully prove the safety of vaccinations. There are many reasons why a mother wouldn't listen to sound research, which is sad.
ReplyDelete