The issue of immunizations is rife with questions about personal freedom, personal responsibility and the public good. In other words, it is a petri dish for robust debate.
So, let us begin with the simple part: Children should receive all recommended vaccinations. Absent a pre-existing medical condition that could be exacerbated, or absent a deeply held religious conviction in opposition to inoculation, children should be vaccinated. Under Washington state law, medical or religious exemptions allow parents to opt their children out of receiving vaccinations, and the need for such exemptions should be inarguable.
The more problematic area, however, is that of philosophical opposition to vaccines. According to the state Department of Health, during the 2013-14 school year, 6.8 percent of students in Clark County had received immunization exemptions; more than 80 percent of those exemptions were because of philosophical opposition.
This reflects a growing anti-vaxxer movement across the nation. Largely due to fraudulent research (look up British doctor Andrew Wakefield), many parents believe that vaccines can be dangerous to children and can generate more medical issues than they prevent. Never mind that no legitimate research supports this assertion. Never mind that there are mountains of data that point to the efficacy — and the necessity — of vaccinations. As Dr. Alan Melnick, Clark County Public Health director, said, “It’s concerning, because lives are at stake. Anybody can spread information to a mass audience these days.”
Because of that, House Bill 2009 in the Legislature would eliminate philosophical opposition as a reason for eschewing vaccines. Introduced by June Robinson, D-Everett, and featuring a long list of co-sponsors that includes Republican Paul Harris and Democrats Jim Moeller and Sharon Wylie, all of Vancouver, the bill will come before the House Committee on Health Care & Wellness beginning Tuesday.
The problem is that you cannot legislate against what people choose to believe — even if that belief is that vaccines are more dangerous than diseases such as measles, mumps or rubella. While we urge all parents to have their children vaccinated and contribute to the public good, in the end, medical decisions on behalf of children must be left up to parents.
This is not said lightly or easily. As recent outbreaks have demonstrated, refusing childhood vaccinations out of some personal ideology has real-world consequences. With the anti-vaxxer movement continuing to grow, the herd immunity threshold that protects the public is being endangered.
Yet while personal decisions should remain personal, those who abdicate their responsibility also should face some consequences. Children who are not immunized — aside from the aforementioned religious or medical exemptions — should not be allowed to attend public schools. The fact is that those who do not receive vaccinations are endangering not only themselves but those around them.
At its heart, the issue is a matter of education. Parents should have the right to avoid having their children vaccinated, but first they should engage in a little research. This doesn’t mean believing everything your uncle reads on the Internet or swallowing what your neighbor told you or buying into some long-discredited “scientific” study. This means examining the evidence provided by the millions upon millions of people who have been inoculated.
If parents still wish to avoid vaccinations, that should be their right. But they shouldn’t have the right to endanger their children’s classmates.
