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.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I'm more interested in why the hell immunizations are against their religion, in the first place.

[otseng]

1- Should religious people be allowed to withhold vaccination from their children?

Yes.

Secularists like to cry out separation between church and state. Well, if they really believe that, then they cannot argue that the state should be able to force religious people to do something that is against their beliefs.

2- Is withholding immunization from children child abuse?

No. It is not any more abuse than saying that giving their child immunization is considered child abuse.

3- Should those who don't get immunized be quarantined?

If someone does not have an infectious disease, there is no need to be quarantined.

[Thought Criminal]

Secularists like to cry out separation between church and state. Well, if they really believe that, then they cannot argue that the state should be able to force religious people to do something that is against their beliefs.

Yes, absolutely! If your "beliefs" are that you should beat your children, then the state has all the right in the world to step in and stop you. Calling something your "belief" doesn't mean you're free to break any law you like.

No. It is not any more abuse than saying that giving their child immunization is considered child abuse.

Failing to immunize a child is harmful, which is why it's abusive. It amounts to withholding medical treatment.

If someone does not have an infectious disease, there is no need to be quarantined.

The way it works is that we can't stamp out infectious diseases unless everyone is immunized. Partial immunization means that the disease stays alive among the abused children who didn't get medical treatment, giving it a chance to mutate so that it bypasses the immunization.

TC

[Sjoerd]

1- Should religious people be allowed to withhold vaccination from their children?

Yes.

Secularists like to cry out separation between church and state. Well, if they really believe that, then they cannot argue that the state should be able to force religious people to do something that is against their beliefs.

2- Is withholding immunization from children child abuse?

No. It is not any more abuse than saying that giving their child immunization is considered child abuse.

Are they allowed to do something that is against the best interests of their child? If my religion forbids reading and writing, am I allowed to keep my child at home instead of sending him to school?
And why would protecting a child against a wicked, deadly disease be child abuse? Not protecting them would be child abuse, right?

3- Should those who don't get immunized be quarantined?

If someone does not have an infectious disease, there is no need to be quarantined.

This is not entirely true. If there is an outbreak of disease in a city, you have to quarantine the whole city, especially if it takes days or more between infection and symptoms. However, I agree that if there is no outbreak, no quarantine is needed.

[Sjoerd]

Oh yes, if it is not clear, I am completely with Joey on this one.

[Thought Criminal]

Oh yes, if it is not clear, I am completely with Joey on this one.

Pay attention everyone: Joey, Sjoerd and I are agreeing on something. This rare turn of events must be significant.

TC

[micatala]

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?

Yes. I would, in fact, say a parent should be allowed to refuse vaccinations for ANY reason (not just religious reasons), including reasons of conscience or concern for the risk, either long or short term, of the vaccination.

2- Is withholding immunization from children child abuse?

In general, no. All immunizations are preventative. Most immunizations are for non-life-threatening diseases. I would say that how life-threatening and also how likely the disease is to occur are factors that need to be considered. If, for example, there were an epidemic of bubonic plague under way in the area, and there was a vaccination for it, then I might consider it abuse not to vaccinate.

The mindset behind mandatory immunizations, or mandatory medical interventions in general, is that if we CAN do something to reduce the risk of disease, then we MUST do it. I do not buy this assumption. Granted, not vaccinating may increase your risk of contracting a disease, and it may even increase the risk to others. However, we make decisions not to reduce risk all the time.

I think it pretty likely, for example, that driving certain types of cars could be shown to be riskier for both yourself and for others. Should we outlaw the driving of certain types of cars that can be documented to be riskier? Where do we draw the line? How "risky" does it have to be? Why not outlaw all car trips under a mile? Why not require use of public transportation where it is available?

How about drinking? Clearly it is much less risky for ones own health and for other's health not to drink. Why don't we make it mandatory for people not to drink?

3- Should those who don't get immunized be quarantined?

No, except perhaps in extreme situations where a widespread and life-threatending epidemic is already under way.

Me:
1- No, the health of the child should always come first.

I find this a somewhat hypocritical argument.

Would you outlaw elective Caesarean sections? Would you outlaw smoking and drinking for pregnant women? Would you outlaw the consumption of soft drinks by minors?

Can we outlaw all carnival rides for kids? How about skate board parks?

I know! Let's outlaw institutionalized education. Since kids in schools, daycares, and even college students in residence halls are much more at risk, even according to the article cited, let's avoid this risk and require everyone to be home-schooled.

2- Yes, withholding medical care from a child is child abuse.

What if I don't give my kid and aspirin if they have a headache? What if I don't give them cough drops if they have a cough? What if I have no insurance and cannot afford routine check ups or dental care? What if I vaccinate for polio but not for chicken pox?

3- Yes, just because you don't want to be immunized from a disease does not mean I should be exposed to it.

Would it be OK if I insisted you abstain from alcohol because I do not want to be exposed to the risk that poses to me? Would it be OK if I insisted you not drive, at least not when the distances could be traveled by walking or biking? Would it be OK if I require you to use public transportation instead of a personal vehicle?

And think about this. If it can be shown that attending church has a positive health benefit, would it be OK to require your children to attend religious services?

[McCulloch]

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

Those are unwarranted assumptions. As with most drugs, there are contra-indications for most immunizations. If it is dangerous for a person to get the immunization, then it should not be mandatory. Those administering the medication should be, by law, required to know the contraindications of the drug. Sadly this is not always the case.

1- Should religious people be allowed to withhold vaccination from their children?

They should not have any more rights to withhold medication than non-religious persons. Religious objection should not be an allowed excuse any more than any other public safety issue.

2- Is withholding immunization from children child abuse?

Not always. However, in context of the debate, withholding required medical attention from children for merely religious reasons, is child abuse, in my opinion.

3- Should those who don't get immunized be quarantined?

Yes, if there is an outbreak and if they have not acquired natural immunity.

Secularists like to cry out separation between church and state. Well, if they really believe that, then they cannot argue that the state should be able to force religious people to do something that is against their beliefs.

Allowing religious beliefs to become an unconditional exemption from obeying public safety laws is an abuse of church state separation.

[Sjoerd]

2- Is withholding immunization from children child abuse?

In general, no. All immunizations are preventative. Most immunizations are for non-life-threatening diseases. I would say that how life-threatening and also how likely the disease is to occur are factors that need to be considered. If, for example, there were an epidemic of bubonic plague under way in the area, and there was a vaccination for it, then I might consider it abuse not to vaccinate.

The mindset behind mandatory immunizations, or mandatory medical interventions in general, is that if we CAN do something to reduce the risk of disease, then we MUST do it. I do not buy this assumption. Granted, not vaccinating may increase your risk of contracting a disease, and it may even increase the risk to others. However, we make decisions not to reduce risk all the time.

I think it pretty likely, for example, that driving certain types of cars could be shown to be riskier for both yourself and for others. Should we outlaw the driving of certain types of cars that can be documented to be riskier? Where do we draw the line? How "risky" does it have to be? Why not outlaw all car trips under a mile? Why not require use of public transportation where it is available?

How about drinking? Clearly it is much less risky for ones own health and for other's health not to drink. Why don't we make it mandatory for people not to drink?

3- Should those who don't get immunized be quarantined?

No, except perhaps in extreme situations where a widespread and life-threatending epidemic is already under way.

Me:
1- No, the health of the child should always come first.

I find this a somewhat hypocritical argument.

Would you outlaw elective Caesarean sections? Would you outlaw smoking and drinking for pregnant women? Would you outlaw the consumption of soft drinks by minors?

Can we outlaw all carnival rides for kids? How about skate board parks?

I know! Let's outlaw institutionalized education. Since kids in schools, daycares, and even college students in residence halls are much more at risk, even according to the article cited, let's avoid this risk and require everyone to be home-schooled.

2- Yes, withholding medical care from a child is child abuse.

What if I don't give my kid and aspirin if they have a headache? What if I don't give them cough drops if they have a cough? What if I have no insurance and cannot afford routine check ups or dental care? What if I vaccinate for polio but not for chicken pox?

3- Yes, just because you don't want to be immunized from a disease does not mean I should be exposed to it.

Would it be OK if I insisted you abstain from alcohol because I do not want to be exposed to the risk that poses to me? Would it be OK if I insisted you not drive, at least not when the distances could be traveled by walking or biking? Would it be OK if I require you to use public transportation instead of a personal vehicle?

And think about this. If it can be shown that attending church has a positive health benefit, would it be OK to require your children to attend religious services?

Those are unwarranted assumptions. As with most drugs, there are contra-indications for most immunizations. If it is dangerous for a person to get the immunization, then it should not be mandatory. Those administering the medication should be, by law, required to know the contraindications of the drug. Sadly this is not always the case.

These objections may be valid, yet you cannot expect parents to be experts on these matters. In addition, it involves others than just the people considered: they may help spreading the disease to others. Therefore, it should be up to medical experts and the government to decide whether or not to vaccinate.