Posted on 06/10/2015 7:37:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It so happened that I was preparing an introduction to an anthology of the writings of Edmund Burke when I read an article in a recent edition of the New England Journal of Medicine with the title “Social Distancing and the Unvaccinated.” One of Burke’s main contentions, at least according to me, is that politics are, or ought to be, more than the application of abstract first principles to practical affairs: and, as if to prove him right, along came this article.
The question was this: if it is permissible for parents to refuse to have their children immunized against preventable childhood diseases, does the state have the right, through one or other of its agencies, to exclude those children temporarily from school or other social institutions if there is an epidemic developing?
This question can be answered neither by a single abstract principle alone nor by appeal to scientific fact. The matter is complex, and on this occasion arose in the context of an outbreak of measles in California that soon spread and was in part occasioned by a reduction in the rate of immunization against the disease consequent upon the fraudulent activities of Dr Andrew Wakefield, a British doctor who claimed falsely to have discovered a link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the development of childhood autism.
In addition, two sets of parents in New York legally challenged the exclusion of their children from school because they were unimmunized against chickenpox after an infected child was found in the school. The article did not make clear whether the exclusion was primarily to protect the unimmunized children themselves or others in the school, or both (no immunization conferring 100 per cent immunity, and the more cases encountered the greater the likelihood of spread).
Scientific considerations are relevant to, but not probative of, any answer. The article, strangely, made no mention of the fact that parents’ rights, which we all accept within quite wide limits, nevertheless may impinge on those of their children, for example that to life itself: in which case parents’ rights have to be, or at any rate are, overridden.
If the parents’ decision not to immunize were one of life or death, either for their or other children, most (but perhaps not all) people would agree that their say in the matter should not count. But in fact it is rarely one of life and death, but rather one of transient illness with very occasional severe complications. Just how great is the risk of the latter is dependent on factors other than the parents’ decision not to immunize: measles is much less serious a disease in rich than in poor countries, for example. Moreover, some questions, for example, how long it is necessary to socially distance (Orwellian phrase) children in order to abrogate the risk of spreading may not be completely answerable in the current state of knowledge.
How many days off school for one child equal the risk of contraction of a mild illness by another? There is no way of answering this question except by the exercise of judgment in particular circumstances. This is precisely what Burke would have predicted: what we decide cannot be determined by appealing to conflicting rights alone, the more fundamental of them prevailing. Sometimes one will prevail, sometimes another; there is no way of making politics a matter of such accurate calculation that no faculty of judgment, with its permanent possibility of error, will ever have to be exercised.
The article focuses on religious objectors to immunization, but they are probably outnumbered by Californian-style cranks, paranoiacs and believers in all you read on the internet.
If the other kids are vaccinated then how are they endangered by an unvaccinated kid? Surely these miracle vaccinations work!
0bama walks over to you and your child with a needle.
he says you must allow him to inject whatever’s in the needle into your kid.
would you trust him?
in American Civilized Society,,, yes...
I never understood why “conservatives” trust their gov’t here with this topic blindly.
Yes...I’m a “vaxer”.
Vaccines make it less likely that you’ll get infected but they’re not a guarantee. ‘Herd immunity’ serves to protect us from having a disease spread around enough to find out who’s immune system isn’t going to protect them- the elderly, the sick, infants, the plain unlucky.
On the other hand; we can't have vaccinated children giving diseases to the unvaccinated ones...
Your graphic doesn’t account for the ‘immunized and sick’...
“Parental rights do not extend to endangering other people’s children”
If other people’s children are vaccinated how are they endangered by unvaccinated children?
Unvaccinated children, assuming that the unvacccinated status results from parental worry about the health of their children, whether wise or misguided, should be homeschooled, anyway, as should all other children about whom the parents actually give a damn. For some private or church school should be an option. Sending your child to public school is a strong indication that one does not care anything at all about one’s children beyond the embarrassment of having them die of malnutrition or be taken by CPS.
No, they shouldn’t be forced to stay home, since the only ones they are endangering is themselves. If a parent is stupid enough to prevent their child from being vaccinated, at least it’s only they who suffer.
Why anyone would leave their child susceptible to measles, tetanus, diphtheria, and rubella is beyond me. Horrible diseases...
Before you have your child vaccinated, check with your doctor to see if your child is healthy and his immune system has developed to the point he can withstand the vaccination. All children are not the same. Some have health issues that need to be considered. If the doctor says it’s OK, then ask him to sign a guarantee that your child will not become ill, permanently disabled, or die from the procedure. And likewise that your child will be guaranteed immunization against the disease and all its variants. Then, if all goes right you will not have to worry about your child contracting that disease from those other unvaccinated children. Couldn’t be simpler, right.
I will guarantee no doctor in his right mind will put his signature on the dotted line. If he will, then get the hell out of there as fast as you can. If he won’t, get him to explain why. Ask him if his children have been vaccinated. Skip the math and statistics. It’s always a small percentage who suffered the possible side effects. But get the facts and know what kind of side-effects to expect when things go wrong. Then you make the call, not the government or some community activist group, and decide what’s best for your child. The child’s welfare is your responsibility.
Of course, if you’re willing to throw caution to the wind or don’t want to be bothered with the facts, this won’t be necessary. Then proceed. Big government and your local community organizer will be there to help if things go wrong. I guarantee.
-— If a parent is stupid enough to prevent their child from being vaccinated, at least it’s only they who suffer. -—
If he’s not vaccinated he could be carrying disease, at least while he’s pre-symptomatic.
Unvaccinated children should be kept out of school as a matter of public health.
Similarly, parents should be able to keep their kids out of school as a matter of mental, emotional, spiritual and physical health.
Correct.
Sooo, has anyone asked the question “so who are they gonna get sick, the vaccinated masses?”
If you are allowing unvaccinated children in school, I’m giong to guess yours won’t be the only ones. The danger is chiefly to other unvaccinated children.
Typhoid Mary
duh
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.