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 would say that this is the crux of the issue. I have chosen to not immunize my children not because of any Biblical mandate, but because I believe it is riskier to be immunized.

The problem here is that, as with so many other scientific matters,, including the dead rising and the Earth flooding, you are completely wrong. Like most parents, but perhaps worse because of the impact of religion, you are entirely unqualified to determine whether vaccines are harmful or beneficial.

Instead, you react on fear, and as a result, your children have been endangered by your irrational decision. Your incompetence as a doctor is not your fault, but your incompetence as a parent is; the latter comes from your refusal to admit to the former.

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

In a move autism family advocates call unprecedented, federal health officials have concluded that childhood vaccines contributed to symptoms of the disorder in a 9-year-old Georgia girl.

Ga. girl helps link autism to childhood vaccines

I have always believed, even though the medical community emphatically denies it, that there is a link between autism and thimerosal.

The medical community is right and you are wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/ ... alth.media

Though it is not exactly on religious beliefs that I exempt my children, it is the method that I'm available to use to exempt them.

This is a fine example of comorbidity between religious and anti-scientific memes. Religion is threatened by science so it encourages a disregard for science and allows itself to be used as the excuse for behaviors contrary to scientific results, such as denying evolution or refusing to provide medical care to children.

Religion positively encourages delusions of competency among the ignorant while protecting them from criticism. Those who don't know meiosis from mitosis get to pontificate on how false evolution is. Parents who haven't read a single study and wouldn't understand them if they did suddenly feel qualified to disregard the consensus of the medical community.

Say something stupid and people tend to call you on it. Say the same stupid thing but call it your religious belief and people censor themselves out of respect for your spirituality. Well, people other than myself, anyhow.

And I agree with micatala. People should be able to refuse vaccinations for any reason. But, only religious people are allowed this exemption in Georgia. (Another nice benefit of being religious )

In other words, you're bragging that you've used a violation of the separation of church and state to abuse your child. Bravo.

If there's anybody that has the most interest in the welfare of a child, it would most likely be their parents, not the state. Sure, there are exceptions to this, but as a rule, parents would care more for their child than any institution would.

Caring demonstrably does not generate competence. The parents of the girl who died from diabetes because they preferred to pray for her than give her insulin undoubtedly cared for her very much. They just were so out of touch with reality that they killed her with their incompetence.

The law does not mandate that all children be immunized. The law allows for those to chose to refrain from immunizations due to religious beliefs to be exempted.

The OP is not about what the law (in Georgia, of all places) says, but rather what it ought to.

And I believe immunizations can potentially be harmful, so nobody has the innate right to harm my children.

You seem to think that parents have an innate right to harm their own children by arbitrarily restricting medical care based on their delusions.

If a child is sick, I support keeping them at home. But if a child is not sick, there is no reason to quarantine them. Just because a child is more prone to be sick does not mean they should be quarantined.

Bringing children together for school is a fine way to encourage the spread of disease. That's why, back when there was a polio epidemic, concerned parents kept their children safe at home. Now that we have immunizations for this and other deadly diseases, we require that children be protected before they come to school.

If it's a matter of life and death, I would tend to agree with you. But, in the case of immunizations, it's not like if you don't get a vaccine then you will die.

It is indeed a matter of life and death: these are serious, life-threatening diseases.

I would actually tend to agree with you also. Here in Georgia, there are only two possible ways to get out immunizations, a medical exemption and a religious exemption. I can't get a doctor to write up a medical exemption, but I do get to use the religious exemption.

Right, no medical exemption is possible because there is no medical basis for your irrational fears. But religion is always ready to support irrationality.

This is why I hate religion. Not because it makes absurd claims about supernatural beings or the distant past; that's merely stupid and pathetic. No, I hate it because the irrationality that allows for those absurd claims leaks over and hurts real people, including the children you claim to love. Religion is evil because it breeds irrationality.

TC

[otseng]

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

In a move autism family advocates call unprecedented, federal health officials have concluded that childhood vaccines contributed to symptoms of the disorder in a 9-year-old Georgia girl.

Ga. girl helps link autism to childhood vaccines

I have always believed, even though the medical community emphatically denies it, that there is a link between autism and thimerosal.

The medical community is right and you are wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/ ... alth.media

You might want to note that the father of the 9 year old girl is a member of the medical community. It is not just me making an assertion about vaccination and autism. He even published an article in the Journal of Child Neurology about her daughter's condition.

Developmental Regression and Mitochondrial Dysfunction in a Child With Autism

So this is not some religious nut making the claim as you would like to believe.

Religion is threatened by science so it encourages a disregard for science and allows itself to be used as the excuse for behaviors contrary to scientific results, such as denying evolution or refusing to provide medical care to children.

Religion being threatened by science has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The parents of the girl who died from diabetes because they preferred to pray for her than give her insulin undoubtedly cared for her very much. They just were so out of touch with reality that they killed her with their incompetence.

We're not debating about withholding insulin to a diabetic child, but withholding vaccines to a healthy child.

The OP is not about what the law (in Georgia, of all places) says, but rather what it ought to.

I'm not sure what you're implying by "of all places". Anyways, I live in Georgia so that is the law that I'm most familiar with.

Also, my response was to your statement - "not to mention their obligation to follow the law" and the implication that laws are not being followed.

It is indeed a matter of life and death: these are serious, life-threatening diseases.

Yes, they can be serious. But I also consider autism a serious disorder.

Right, no medical exemption is possible because there is no medical basis for your irrational fears.

Actually, I believe I have a rational position based on evidence. You might disagree with it, but that doesn't make my position a religiously motivated irrational fear.

[Fallibleone]

Moderator note: Thought Criminal, PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING PERSONAL COMMENTS ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS. I refer you to forum rule #1:

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

Take a moment to examine the heading and sub-heading which appears on every single page of this site. 'Debating Christianity and Religion Civil Debates on Christianity and Religions'. This post by you falls some way short of this, as you well know.

In other words, you're bragging that you've used a violation of the separation of church and state to abuse your child. Bravo.

Instead, you react on fear, and as a result, your children have been endangered by your irrational decision. Your incompetence as a doctor is not your fault, but your incompetence as a parent is; the latter comes from your refusal to admit to the former.

You seem to think that parents have an innate right to harm their own children by arbitrarily restricting medical care based on their delusions.

It may not be a consideration of yours to put your arguments across in a civil manner, but it is a rule of this forum. You can make your point without resorting to personal attacks, with the added bonus that you won't get yourself banned in the process. Many skilled debaters on all sides manage it. If you wish to remain a member here, stick to the rules. Alternatively, there is no shortage of sites on the 'net where you can churn out ad hominems to your heart's content.

[Beto]

Actually, I believe I have a rational position based on evidence. You might disagree with it, but that doesn't make my position a religiously motivated irrational fear.

I can understand your position. But what do you say to a parent that believes your concerns are unfounded? They're also entitled to think your unvaccinated child jeopardizes the health of those around it. If there is research supporting your opinion, even more can be found about the possibility and dangers of epidemic outbreaks. You also may not agree, but the other parents will feel like they're jeopardizing the health of their children (or acknowledge the possibility), benefiting your child, while you refuse to do the same, as if you and your children are "special", or above the community's efforts for public health.

[Goat]

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

In a move autism family advocates call unprecedented, federal health officials have concluded that childhood vaccines contributed to symptoms of the disorder in a 9-year-old Georgia girl.

Ga. girl helps link autism to childhood vaccines

I have always believed, even though the medical community emphatically denies it, that there is a link between autism and thimerosal.

The medical community is right and you are wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/ ... alth.media

You might want to note that the father of the 9 year old girl is a member of the medical community. It is not just me making an assertion about vaccination and autism. He even published an article in the Journal of Child Neurology about her daughter's condition.

Developmental Regression and Mitochondrial Dysfunction in a Child With Autism

So this is not some religious nut making the claim as you would like to believe.

Religion is threatened by science so it encourages a disregard for science and allows itself to be used as the excuse for behaviors contrary to scientific results, such as denying evolution or refusing to provide medical care to children.

Religion being threatened by science has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The parents of the girl who died from diabetes because they preferred to pray for her than give her insulin undoubtedly cared for her very much. They just were so out of touch with reality that they killed her with their incompetence.

We're not debating about withholding insulin to a diabetic child, but withholding vaccines to a healthy child.

The OP is not about what the law (in Georgia, of all places) says, but rather what it ought to.

I'm not sure what you're implying by "of all places". Anyways, I live in Georgia so that is the law that I'm most familiar with.

Also, my response was to your statement - "not to mention their obligation to follow the law" and the implication that laws are not being followed.

It is indeed a matter of life and death: these are serious, life-threatening diseases.

Yes, they can be serious. But I also consider autism a serious disorder.

Right, no medical exemption is possible because there is no medical basis for your irrational fears.

Actually, I believe I have a rational position based on evidence. You might disagree with it, but that doesn't make my position a religiously motivated irrational fear.

Autism is a serious disorder, yes, but a few articles that suggest a link do not make a link. Test after test after test do not show a link. Part of what is needed is PEER REVIEW, TESTABILITY and CONFIRMATION. So far, that link has not been anywhere near established, and indeed, there are other cases that show it has nothing to do with vaccines. One doctor actually diagnosed his own child with autism BEFORE the child was given vaccines.

I didn't see any claim in the link you provided that this doctor published a vaccine link in that article. There is a big difference between him suspecting a link, and his publishing an article on it. Do you have the full article? The abstract you linked to said nothing about vaccines.. but rather about a metabolic difference.

[McCulloch]

I would say that this is the crux of the issue. I have chosen to not immunize my children not because of any Biblical mandate, but because I believe it is riskier to be immunized.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is off topic unless you admit that your conclusion that immunization is risky is somehow related to your religious beliefs. Although you do admit that religion is a fine way to get around legislation. In filing your objection, did you lie to any officials or on paper about the fact that your choice was not religiously motivated?

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

A survey of the actual scientific literature on this topic:

• A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism This study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism.
  Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, M.D., Anders Hviid, M.Sc., Mogens Vestergaard, M.D., Diana Schendel, Ph.D., Jan Wohlfahrt, M.Sc., Poul Thorsen, M.D., Jørn Olsen, M.D., and Mads Melbye, M.D.
  The New England Journal of Medicine
• Time Trends in Autism and in MMR Immunization Coverage in California These data do not suggest an association between MMR immunization among young children and an increase in autism occurrence.
  Loring Dales, MD; Sandra Jo Hammer, RN,PHN; Natalie J. Smith, MD,MPH
  Journal of the American Medical Association
• Association Between Thimerosal-Containing Vaccine and Autism The results do not support a causal relationship between childhood vaccination with thimerosal-containing vaccines and development of autistic-spectrum disorders.
  Anders Hviid, MSc; Michael Stellfeld, MD; Jan Wohlfahrt, MSc; Mads Melbye, MD, PhD
  Journal of the American Medical Association
• Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence From Danish Population-Based Data The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism. Our ecological data do not support a correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and the incidence of autism.
  Kreesten M. Madsen, MD, Marlene B. Lauritsen, MD, Carsten B. Pedersen, Msc, Poul Thorsen, MD, PhD, Anne-Marie Plesner, MD, PhD, Peter H. Andersen, MD and Preben B. Mortensen, MD, DMSc
  Pediatrics
• No Evidence for A New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism No evidence was found to support a distinct syndrome of MMR-induced autism or of "autistic enterocolitis." These results add to the recent accumulation of large-scale epidemiologic studies that all failed to support an association between MMR and autism at population level. When combined, the current findings do not argue for changes in current immunization programs and recommendations.
  Eric Fombonne and Suniti Chakrabarti
  Pediatrics
• Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines Lack of consistent evidence for an association . The body of existing data, including the ecologic data presented herein, is not consistent with the hypothesis that increased exposure to Thimerosal-containing vaccines is responsible for the apparent increase in the rates of autism in young children being observed worldwide.
  P . Stehr-Green
  American Journal of Preventive Medicine

[Thought Criminal]

You might want to note that the father of the 9 year old girl is a member of the medical community. It is not just me making an assertion about vaccination and autism. He even published an article in the Journal of Child Neurology about her daughter's condition.

Developmental Regression and Mitochondrial Dysfunction in a Child With Autism

So this is not some religious nut making the claim as you would like to believe.

Religion is a buffet; lots of options and you choose based on taste You have a world full of different religious beliefs, all equally well supported (which is to say, not at all), and if you look hard enough, you can find a minister whose message fits what you want to hear so that you can have your existing beliefs pandered to professionally.

Science is different. It's not based on picking the one doctor who supports your statistically illiterate conspiracy theory, disregarding the totality of the evidence and the consensus of the community. The article I linked to, which you either didn't read or didn't understand, explains how we know that autism is not the result of immunization. It's written by a member of the medical community who does not ignore the reasons for the consensus.

Religion being threatened by science has absolutely nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with why religions, particularly those which make demonstrably false claims about reality, fear and loathe science.

We're not debating about withholding insulin to a diabetic child, but withholding vaccines to a healthy child.

Of course, vaccines are what we give to keep them healthy, and my original point nonetheless remains: caring about someone doesn't make you competent. Case in point, you care about your children but are incompetent as a parent.

I'm not sure what you're implying by "of all places". Anyways, I live in Georgia so that is the law that I'm most familiar with.

I'm implying that, with the exception of Atlanta, it's a backwater. In more civilized regions, we do not give a free pass to religion.

Also, my response was to your statement - "not to mention their obligation to follow the law" and the implication that laws are not being followed.

You broke the law by lying; instead of admitting it was your own medical incompetence, you used religion as your excuse. What's funny is that your lie has some truth to it; you weren't told to avoid immunization, just intentionally misled about the way science works.

Yes, they can be serious. But I also consider autism a serious disorder.

I'm selling pendants that protect against tiger attacks. Since I've worn mine, no tiger has attacked me.

Actually, I believe I have a rational position based on evidence. You might disagree with it, but that doesn't make my position a religiously motivated irrational fear.

Your position is demonstrably false and harmful.

TC

[Confused]

Of course, vaccines are what we give to keep them healthy, and my original point nonetheless remains: caring about someone doesn't make you competent. Case in point, you care about your children but are incompetent as a parent.


TC

MODERATOR WARNING:

Contrary to you obvious display of your own belief here Thought Criminal, you have NO right to call anyone incompetent as a parent. Your opinion of someones parenting styles are just that, your opinions and have no merit in a CIVIL debate. These notes, interventions, warnings, and even your probation obviously mean nothing to you. If it is your wish to be banned, please do the respectable thing and request to have your account deleted as twobitsmeda did. Keeping up these games are old and tiresome. You demand respect, yet show none.

[micatala]

I would say that this is the crux of the issue. I have chosen to not immunize my children not because of any Biblical mandate, but because I believe it is riskier to be immunized.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is off topic unless you admit that your conclusion that immunization is risky is somehow related to your religious beliefs. Although you do admit that religion is a fine way to get around legislation. In filing your objection, did you lie to any officials or on paper about the fact that your choice was not religiously motivated?

I think this depends on whether you assume the OP is asking if religious reasons are the ONLY allowable reasons for exception. If one wishes to argue that parents can make an exception for ANY reason, or for some reasons which INCLUDE religious reasons, then the other reasons, it seems to me, would be relevant.


Although some of my examples have not been addressed, I am going to continue to offer them and others up for discussion because I continue to beieve that the crux of the matter has not been addressed. Yes, my examples are not exactly like the immunizations issue. However, this does not mean they can be dismissed a priori as irrelevant as some seem wont to do.


I will also take issue with the notion that this is a religions versus science issue, or that deciding not to immunize one's children is part and parcel with fundamentalism or anti-evolutionism. I am largely agreeing with otseng on this issue, but we profoundly disagree with each other on evolution, for example.

I'm not sure what you're implying by "of all places". Anyways, I live in Georgia so that is the law that I'm most familiar with.

I'm implying that, with the exception of Atlanta, it's a backwater. In more civilized regions, we do not give a free pass to religion.

This article makes the case that the Amish and the Mormons are the most flagrant violators of U.S. law-breaking based on religion (or even overall??!!?). While the Amish are farmers, many of them actually do live in relatively densely populated rural areas, particularly between Philadelphia and Harrisburg PA. Now, whether or not you agree with their practices, or the exceptions that have been allowed to them, they arguably do present risk to themselves and others based on their religious beliefs. Riding horse-drawn carriages around on fairly busy and windy state highways is one example.



Again, I acknowledge not immunizing presents risks to the children and others. However, no one has offered me any coherent explanation of which risks or how much risk we are going to allow before mandating people follow certain procedures. I think I have shown that we DO allow risks to be taken with our children and that we DO allow people to present risk to other people without mandating that all peple take certain actions.

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.

I will also point out that we allow economic considerations to come into play, if not with immunizations, with respect to other medical treatments. For example, we typically do not provide free flu shots to everybody, but only to members of the population which are at higher risk for infection or severe consequences.


I would ask those who do not feel religious or any other exemptions should be made to mandatory immunizations to document how much risk this present to the unimmunized children and to others. I think this is an appropriate request, given that some of those taking this position have said refusing immunization amounts to child abuse and presents an unacceptable risk to others.

[otseng]

I can understand your position. But what do you say to a parent that believes your concerns are unfounded? They're also entitled to think your unvaccinated child jeopardizes the health of those around it.

They are free to believe that my concerns are unfounded.

I would also say my decision would affect my unvaccinated children more than their vaccinated children. It is my children that would be more at risk for infectious diseases than theirs. Also, if my children have the measles, I would of course immediately keep them at home and prevent the spread to others.

You also may not agree, but the other parents will feel like they're jeopardizing the health of their children (or acknowledge the possibility), benefiting your child, while you refuse to do the same, as if you and your children are "special", or above the community's efforts for public health.

Only if immunizations have significant risks would my child benefit by not having immunizations. Otherwise, there is no medical benefit.

I didn't see any claim in the link you provided that this doctor published a vaccine link in that article. There is a big difference between him suspecting a link, and his publishing an article on it. Do you have the full article? The abstract you linked to said nothing about vaccines.. but rather about a metabolic difference.

I'm not really sure the article comes out and says there is a link. But he does think there is a link because he filed the suit. And he was able to convince the court that there is some link since he was awarded damages.

Part of what is needed is PEER REVIEW, TESTABILITY and CONFIRMATION.

There is one study that I would be curious about. A large scale sampling of immunized vs nonimmunized children and see the percentage of autistic children in each.

In filing your objection, did you lie to any officials or on paper about the fact that your choice was not religiously motivated?

Certain vaccines also have a link to aborted fetuses, so on that I would object to on "religious" reasons.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is off topic unless you admit that your conclusion that immunization is risky is somehow related to your religious beliefs.

I don't want to derail the topic on getting into the whole autism and immunization debate. But I will admit that it is not based on a religious belief, but on, for lack of a better word, a rational belief.

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?