Should Religious Folk Be Exempt From Immunization

[JoeyKnothead]

From the article here:
http://canadianpress.google.com/article ... _Rx9RsfuVg

When immunizations are not accepted on religious grounds, the consequences can affect others. Now this concerns the mumps, but what if they are for wicked, nasty, deadly diseases?

Questions:
Let's require that immunizations are proven to 99% effective, and free to all.

1- Should religious people be allowed to withhold vaccination from their children?
2- Is withholding immunization from children child abuse?
3- Should those who don't get immunized be quarantined?

Me:
1- No, the health of the child should always come first.
2- Yes, withholding medical care from a child is child abuse.
3- Yes, just because you don't want to be immunized from a disease does not mean I should be exposed to it.

[Thought Criminal]

I will also point out that immunizations do not eliminate risk, even if there is 100% compliance. They simply reduce the risk, arguably greatly, but still it is a reduction not an elimination.

This isn't just about the risk to the individuals who aren't immunized. When almost everyone is immunized, contagious diseases don't have a chance to spread much because they can't find a host. However, when there's a critical mass of potential hosts, you get epidemics. In this way, people refusing to provide medical care for their children risk the lives of those children who have genuine medical contraindications against immunization.

TC

[Fallibleone]

Which gets into, why should I be allowed to be exempted from the mandate of the medical establishment on religious grounds, but if I have rational grounds it would not be enough reason?

Because religion enjoys a privileged position and it is generally considered taboo to question it? Darwin's Rottweiler has quite a lot to say on this matter, with which I tend to agree.

[JoeyKnothead]

Seems funny how religion tells folks not to lie, and then they lie about the reasons they would not/do something. When an immunization is proven safe and effective, and given out for free, would someone still refuse to have their child inoculated? Or would they prefer they stay indoctrinated? (I made a funny )

Kinda sad to think someone would allow their religion to potentially harm many others. I guess when you hold irrational beliefs it only follows you would act irrationally.

[McCulloch]

Why should I be allowed to be exempted from the mandate of the medical establishment [with regard to immunization of my children] on religious grounds, but if I have rational grounds it would not be enough reason?

Good question, It is a political not a science one though. Should Religion trump Reason?

[Beto]

I would also say my decision would affect my unvaccinated children more than their vaccinated children.

Again, the issue is not how your decision affects your children, it's how your decision affects other people, children or otherwise, and if whether or not a government, with its available information, should allow parents to make this particular decision.

It is my children that would be more at risk for infectious diseases than theirs.

Can you guarantee other parents you're able to identify an infection before any symptoms are apparent? If your children become infected before you can spot it, all of theirs are at risk. Are you asking the government, the medical establishment, and everyone else to simply trust you on it?

Also, if my children have the measles, I would of course immediately keep them at home and prevent the spread to others.

"Immediately"? I'm admittedly ignorant here, so maybe you can tell me how long it takes before the symptoms are apparent.

[Fallibleone]

And we're not talking about some cough and cold here. People can develop complications from measles and end up with long-term problems. Pleople can and do die from measles. Although small, the numbers of deaths in the UK are currently increasing due to a low vaccination uptake in some areas of the country.

[micatala]

Which gets into, why should I be allowed to be exempted from the mandate of the medical establishment on religious grounds, but if I have rational grounds it would not be enough reason?

Furthermore, what if the "rational grounds" also happen to be part of one's religious beliefs? We seem to be implicitly assuming, through much of this discussion, that the rational reasons and the religious reasons are mutually exclusive sets of reasons. This does not seem to me to be a valid assumption.

[micatala]

Again, I submit that the crux of the matter is whether the following statement is to be considered binding on all of us:

"If a certain medical procedure CAN produce a beneficial effect, it MUST be done."

Are those who support mandatory immunizations with no exceptions willing to support this more general statement or not??????



And to give yet another example, let me wade into the abortion debate.


Right now, once a baby is born, we routinely take drastic and heroic measures to keep that baby alive, even if the chances of survival are small, and even if there is a high likelihood the baby will develop with serious abnormalities or decreases in functionality of some parts of its body or brain. Of course, by routine I allow that those with more means are more likely to engage in these heroic measures than someone who is poor.


We do the same pre-natally in many cases, sometimes conducting pre-mature Ceasarean births to save the child.

Now, this is highly hypothetical, but suppose medical advances made it possible to save a reasonable percentage of fetuses and have them develop into normal children even from shortly after conception. Would we be obligated to take these measures in all circumstances? If not, why not?

Obviously this example only deals with the risk to the child and possibly the mother and not others. Still, to the extent that some are claiming NOT immunizing a child constitutes abuse of that child, this is a relevant example.

Also, I could be wrong about this, but my understanding is that currently in the U.S., before a certain point in the pregnancy (3rd trimester), it might be entirely optional and up to the parents if any heroic measures be taken to save the baby, if it is determined the pregnancy cannot continue naturally. I realize this gets into the whole issue of when "personhood" begins, or whether and when we as a society decide to grant the "right to survival" to fetuses.

However, if we wish to take this issue at least partially out of play, we could add in the assumption that the cost of any measures taken to save the fetus would be born by the society at large, as is assumed in this discussion regarding immunizations.

Finally, I will note that, while the "saving the baby from conception on" scenario is highly hypothetical, it does share the feature with immunizations that the issue of whether or not to do the procedure only exists because the procedure does. In the days before immunizations, we would simply accept that these diseases happen, and would be restricted to taking other measures to prevent the disease or deal with it once it was present.

[micatala]

Suppose it became possible to benefit society and reduce risks of illness for all by requiring certain genetic manipulations. Would this be an appropriate requirement? If not, why not?

To be more specific, suppose it became possible to use genetic manipulation to reduce the risk of contracting certain contagious diseases, diseases for which there were no vaccines? Should we require everyone to undergo the genetic manipulation to reduce the risk of the disease?

[micatala]

Suppose it became possible to benefit society and reduce risks of illness for all by requiring certain genetic manipulations. Would this be an appropriate requirement? If not, why not?

To be more specific, suppose it became possible to use genetic manipulation to reduce the risk of contracting certain contagious diseases, diseases for which there were no vaccines? Should we require everyone to undergo the genetic manipulation to reduce the risk of the disease?