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.

[Beto]

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??????

Making no distinctions between age and risk to others, certainly not.

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?

I think parents shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for babies or children that the medical establishment disagrees with, and that are covered by basic health care.

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?

If the manipulation was safe, than I think so.

[micatala]

I thank Beto for responding to my questions and requests!

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??????

Making no distinctions between age and risk to others, certainly not.

Does the risk to the person undergoing the treatment have no bearing? If you are saying the risk to both those undergoing the treatment and the risk to others is a factor in making the decision, then on that much, we would agree.

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?

I think parents shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for babies or children that the medical establishment disagrees with, and that are covered by basic health care.

I am quite unwilling to cede my decision making authority to this degree. The medical establishment is not infallible. Nor does it always act in a completely objective fashion. Nor does it always act in the most beneficial way to its clients. One example is the existence of many cases where OB's allow women to have elective Caesareans, even if these present greater risk to the mom and child than a normal birth.

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?

If the manipulation was safe, than I think so.

Even if the manipulation might result in significant changes to the characteristics of your children?

Again, I would disagree, unless the risk could be shown to be very, very high.

Also, we have to acknowledge that "safe" (almost?!) never means 100% safe. Vaccines are relatively safe, as far as we know. They are not 100% safe. In addition, the safety considerations are mostly with regard to short term considerations. We do not really know if there are no long term effects (like increased risk of cancer) to immunizations.



So, can we quantify the risks?

I would suggest, although others may disagree and we can debate this point, that we make estimates based on the assumption that a relatively small number of people will ask to be exempt. This is the current situation and likely to be the situation in the future.

[Beto]

Does the risk to the person undergoing the treatment have no bearing?

Of course it has. If the prevention factor is small and the risk high, than I would object. But no one else should expect lil' ol' me to be sufficiently informed... and they'd be right.

If you are saying the risk to both those undergoing the treatment and the risk to others is a factor in making the decision, then on that much, we would agree.

The question is whether or not the general population is informed enough to be allowed to make these decisions, when they pose significant risk to others.

I am quite unwilling to cede my decision making authority to this degree. The medical establishment is not infallible. Nor does it always act in a completely objective fashion. Nor does it always act in the most beneficial way to its clients. One example is the existence of many cases where OB's allow women to have elective Caesareans, even if these present greater risk to the mom and child than a normal birth.

But there are many considerations that lead to an elective caesarean. Extreme mother anxiety is just one, and it isn't trivial. I know that in the UK mothers can't simply decide to have them if the doctors don't agree. At least that is their policy.

Even if the manipulation might result in significant changes to the characteristics of your children?

I'd probably loose my objectivity if I thought that were the case. This is the problem. Individual loss of objectivity in matters that affect the whole population.

Also, we have to acknowledge that "safe" (almost?!) never means 100% safe. Vaccines are relatively safe, as far as we know. They are not 100% safe. In addition, the safety considerations are mostly with regard to short term considerations. We do not really know if there are no long term effects (like increased risk of cancer) to immunizations.

It's not an acknowledgment issue. I would appreciate the freedom to make many decisions by myself. My problem is with everyone else being entitled the same.

So, can we quantify the risks?

I would suggest, although others may disagree and we can debate this point, that we make estimates based on the assumption that a relatively small number of people will ask to be exempt. This is the current situation and likely to be the situation in the future.

Isn't one person enough to start an epidemic?

[otseng]

Seems funny how religion tells folks not to lie, and then they lie about the reasons they would not/do something.

I wouldn't say that I'm exactly lying. There are other "religious" reasons that I'm personally against immunizations. But, I will say that the primary reason for being against it is my personal belief in the link of autism and vaccines. Now, I realize I'm going up against practically the entire medical field. But, I've been known to go against the crowd in other areas as well.

When an immunization is proven safe and effective, and given out for free, would someone still refuse to have their child inoculated?

I would challenge the assertion that it is "proven" to be safe. But if is is proven to be 100% safe, I would agree with your position.

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.

Well, I don't believe my position is totally irrational. I do have some basis for it. But, since it's outside the scope of this thread to get into it, you'll have to take it by faith that I do have some rational basis for my belief.

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?

This would be the same situation for any illness.

Also, it would seem that there is a bit of a overdramatization on this issue. There seems to be a strong implication that if my child is not immunized, then that would cause an outbreak of life-threatening diseases.

As many have already pointed out, it is not a requirement to have 100% compliance in order to limit an outbreak. I have simply chosen to be in that small minority of non-compliance. And in my child's school, it seems like I'm the only one who has decided to opt-out. I had asked the school secretary about what form I needed to fill out to opt-out. And she said she did not know.

[JoeyKnothead]

I wouldn't say that I'm exactly lying. There are other "religious" reasons that I'm personally against immunizations. But, I will say that the primary reason for being against it is my personal belief in the link of autism and vaccines. Now, I realize I'm going up against practically the entire medical field. But, I've been known to go against the crowd in other areas as well.

I think I see what you mean, it is your religious duty to take care of your kids, so if you have to tell a lie to do so it would fall under taking care of your kids as best you can under duress. So I guess I owe an apology for that one. Apology.

I would challenge the assertion that it is "proven" to be safe. But if is is proven to be 100% safe, I would agree with your position.

So now I'm wondering, and I don't mean to be rude, and I hope all your kids stay well and happy, but what about surgery?

You would not do an inoculation at a safety of <100%
What if a kid had to have a surgery that fell below your 'inoculation threshold'?

[otseng]

I think I see what you mean, it is your religious duty to take care of your kids, so if you have to tell a lie to do so it would fall under taking care of your kids as best you can under duress. So I guess I owe an apology for that one. Apology.

The sarcasm meter is going off here.

So now I'm wondering, and I don't mean to be rude, and I hope all your kids stay well and happy, but what about surgery?

When you have to preface a statement with "and I don't mean to be rude", then generally it's what you don't mean it to be.

Anyways, surgery has nothing to do with this thread, so there's no need to respond to that question.

[micatala]

If you are saying the risk to both those undergoing the treatment and the risk to others is a factor in making the decision, then on that much, we would agree.

The question is whether or not the general population is informed enough to be allowed to make these decisions, when they pose significant risk to others.

My impression is that, in general, patients have a right to make medical decisions and the right to informed consent. This should be true with immunizations as well as other medical procedures and treatments, in my view. And again, we need to determine the significance of the risk to others.

I am quite unwilling to cede my decision making authority to this degree. The medical establishment is not infallible. Nor does it always act in a completely objective fashion. Nor does it always act in the most beneficial way to its clients. One example is the existence of many cases where OB's allow women to have elective Caesareans, even if these present greater risk to the mom and child than a normal birth.

But there are many considerations that lead to an elective caesarean. Extreme mother anxiety is just one, and it isn't trivial. I know that in the UK mothers can't simply decide to have them if the doctors don't agree. At least that is their policy.

I am willing to be corrected, but my impression in the U.S. is that Caesarean's often occur at the prerogative of the mother.

Even if the manipulation might result in significant changes to the characteristics of your children?

I'd probably loose my objectivity if I thought that were the case. This is the problem. Individual loss of objectivity in matters that affect the whole population.

Very true. As another example, I had a colleague once with a severely disabled infant. He agreed that the amount of medical resources devoted to keeping his child alive and then having some hope of normal life was extraordinary and that we could not afford to do this for everyone, and that many other parents would not have been able to provide these resources. He was also adament that he would advocate as forcefully as possible for his child receiving these resources.

Also, we have to acknowledge that "safe" (almost?!) never means 100% safe. Vaccines are relatively safe, as far as we know. They are not 100% safe. In addition, the safety considerations are mostly with regard to short term considerations. We do not really know if there are no long term effects (like increased risk of cancer) to immunizations.

It's not an acknowledgment issue. I would appreciate the freedom to make many decisions by myself. My problem is with everyone else being entitled the same.

So, can we quantify the risks?

I would suggest, although others may disagree and we can debate this point, that we make estimates based on the assumption that a relatively small number of people will ask to be exempt. This is the current situation and likely to be the situation in the future.

Isn't one person enough to start an epidemic?

[/quote]

Perhaps. Whether one sick person DOES start an epidemic depends on a lot of factors. Whether an epidemic can start in a 100% vaccinated population I am not sure, but my guess is yes it could, since vaccines are not only not 100% safe, but also not 100% effective.

[micatala]

For those who are interested, here is the CDC site on preventable childhood diseases.

I'll post excerpts on a few of the diseases.

Diptheria.

Incidence

Approximately 0.001 cases per 100,000 population in the U.S. since 1980; before the introduction of vaccine in the 1920s incidence was 100-200 cases per 100,000 population. Diphtheria remains endemic in developing countries. The countries of the former Soviet Union have reported >150,000 cases in an epidemic which began in 1990.

death occurs in 5%-10% of respiratory cases.

Respiratory diphtheria has become a rare disease in the U.S. (0-5 cases per year.) An increasing proportion of cases occurs among older children and adults

Circulation appears to continue in some settings even in populations with >80% childhood immunization rates. An asymptomatic carrier state exists even among immune individuals.

Immunity wanes over time; decennial booster doses are required to maintain protective antibody levels.

We have a serious, potentially life-threatening disease. At present in the U.S., there are extremely few cases. The vaccination rate is not given, but given the one statement, it may be lower than 80% in some areas. This begs the question, why is the incidence so low with such a high rate of non-vaccination? I also wonder how many of those not vaccinated are due to 'conscientious refusal' versus other reasons (too poor, not informed, lazy, etc.)

As a digression, I have seen graphs which indicated that many childhood diseases had already experienced rather drastic declines even before widespread vaccination. If this is true, it suggests that there are other factors that led to the decline (better hygiene, better nutrtion, etc.) in addition to vaccines.

Rubella (German Measles)

This is a generally mild disease, but does present significant risks to fetuses of mothers who become infected early in pregnancy. These babies have a very high risk of being born deaf or of other defects. The last major epidemic was in 1964-65 with 12.5 million infections and 20,000 cases of congenital rubella syndrome. Today, there are maybe 20 cases per year. The rubella vaccine, usually given in conjunction with mumps and measles, is 95% effective in conferring immunity, which is believed to be life-long.


I did not see any quoted compliance rates at CDC. However, other sources indicate it is far from universal.

This article discusses the 80% rate in North Carolina, and that this is higher than any other state except Massachusetts.

Now, this is a FULL compliance rate, and does not indicate how many children get no vaccinations. Still, it seems we are getting the benefit of low rates of childhood diseases without full compliance. So why do we need to force immunization on those who have objections?

[JoeyKnothead]

I think I see what you mean, it is your religious duty to take care of your kids, so if you have to tell a lie to do so it would fall under taking care of your kids as best you can under duress. So I guess I owe an apology for that one. Apology.

The sarcasm meter is going off here.

So now I'm wondering, and I don't mean to be rude, and I hope all your kids stay well and happy, but what about surgery?

When you have to preface a statement with "and I don't mean to be rude", then generally it's what you don't mean it to be.

Anyways, surgery has nothing to do with this thread, so there's no need to respond to that question.

I honestly did not mean to be rude or sarcastic. I read your previously replies, and knowing you to be a sensible person, I tried to see it through your eyes. I totally understand why folks would be suspicious of my replies. Speaking about another's kids can be a touchy subject, and knowing how many of my posts are written and perceived I wanted to make it obvious I was not trying to be a wise guy.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Just recently, there was a case which has been one of the strongest support between the link of vaccines and autism.

And even more recently, there was a case which further debunked the link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26532147#storyContinued

WASHINGTON - New research further debunks any link between measles vaccine and autism, work that comes as the nation is experiencing a surge in measles cases fueled by children left unvaccinated.

Years of research with the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, better known as MMR, have concluded that it doesn’t cause autism. Still, some parents’ fears persist, in part because of one 1998 British study that linked the vaccine with a subgroup of autistic children who also have serious gastrointestinal problems. That study reported that measles virus was lingering in the children’s bowels.

Only now have researchers rigorously retested that finding, taking samples of youngsters’ intestines to hunt for signs of virus with the most modern genetic technology. There is no evidence that MMR plays any role, the international team — which included researchers who first raised the issue — reported Wednesday.

Honestly, the link between the MMR vaccine and autism has more scientific studies against it than I can count (and very few for it). How much will it take to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no link? There is clearly considerable risk to not immunizing your children, so how can not vaccinating them be justified, when the evidence is so overwhelmingly against a link between MMR and autism?