Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Individual Liberty and Vaccinations — Troy Senik
Here in Nashville for a couple of weeks — the closest thing I have to therapy — I’ve been perusing the local press, partially as a means of playing one of my favorite games: “Spot the Contrast with California.”
It takes only one item to underscore the difference. The big economic fight right now in Tennessee — a state that already has no general income tax and is in the process of phasing out its estate tax— is whether the Hall Tax, a levy on income from stocks and bonds, is also destined for repeal. We’re not in Los Angeles anymore, Toto.
My survey, however, also brought me to this item — one that the two states have in common. From The Tennessean:
With preventable diseases such as measles staging a resurgence, a leading Nashville physician says it’s time for Tennessee and other states to stop allowing parents to opt out of vaccinating their children.
Exemptions for personal or religious beliefs put children at risk who have legitimate medical reasons for not getting vaccines, said Dr. Bill Schaffner, an infectious diseases professor at Vanderbilt University.
Forty-eight states, including Tennessee, have passed laws allowing parents to opt out of mandatory school vaccinations. About 2 percent of Tennessee children do not receive their required shots because parents cite religious or medical reasons, according to the state health department.
Infectious disease experts worry about that percentage rising, as it has in states such as California, where the rate of parents citing personal belief exemptions rose 50 percent in three years.
… Any action to remove exemptions for mandated school vaccinations in Tennessee would face certain opposition from organizations such as Vaccination Liberation. Kelly Riggs, a spokeswoman for the organization in Knoxville, said the opt-out law in Tennessee should be expanded, not restricted. She wants the state to add philosophical objections to the religious and medical reasons for refusing mandated vaccinations to attend public schools.
“We don’t want the state or any government to tell us what we need to do with our child or body,” Riggs said.
I don’t have any truck with the anti-vaccine crowd, who, in a just world, would receive the kind of “anti-science” scorn reserved for climate change skeptics (the anti-vaxxers, after all, actually hurt people). I’m also libertarian enough, however, that I don’t begrudge people their stupid decisions provided that they — and they only — are the ones who bear the costs.
That’s not the case here, of course. In fact, what makes this issue so interesting from a philosophical point of view is that it includes the two great spike strips of pure libertarianism: children and negative externalities. Both of those factors would lead me to be inclined towards narrowing the exemptions (thought, at two percent, I’m not sure the issue is pervasive enough to justify a response yet).
I’ve got to be honest — I don’t feel great about coming to that conclusion. I’m almost always on the side of those making the religious liberty argument. I was with them on the contraception mandate. I was with them on the fight in Arizona. And here … well, the right to leave your child gratuitously exposed to illness just feels like a bridge too far.
What say you, Ricochet? If you were a state legislator and this issue came before you, what approach would you take?
Published in General
This strikes me as just about perfect. I agree that when you get beyond issues of herd immunity, the balance between individual liberty and public health tips decisively in the opposite direction. And, because I’m so averse to the compulsion involved, I would want to leave those with religious objections alone unless the number of non-participants ballooned to a point where it was creating a serious threat to the wider public.
When in doubt, err on the side of liberty.
Yes, there can be ways of avoiding contact with people who may not be vaccinated; and schools, and other public institutions get to set their own filtering criterion. Freedom comes at a price – and the price is responsibility.
If a private company has the right to say “Take it or leave” I do not think the military is any different. You are arguing for a right to a job. I am sorry this bad thing happened to you, but that does no change my thoughts on the matter. If it is part of the job (and jobs are subject to change) it is part of the job.
I do think there should be full consent, and not have things without one’s knowledge, but if it is part of the job, it is part of the job. That might mean a company with no workers, if what is required is too extreme. It looks like in this case, most people (like my wife at the time) don’t object.
I applaud the scientific advances that vaccines represent. My kids had them all. I just don’t trust the government and pharmaceutical companies anymore. They both lie. They are irresponsible. They are not accountable.
(At the moment, I’m watching the Justina Pelletier case here in Massachusetts. I don’t trust anyone from the government today. Maybe I’ll feel differently when she has been released.)
I am glad my kids are grown and I don’t have to deal with this issue.
My kids had reactions, and one of them has a note attached to her birth certificate saying that she didn’t have her second booster MMR because she had a reaction to the first one and her resistance levels were tested and found to be okay.
I have a lot of question about today’s vaccines.
Thin ice?
You have mistaken my argument for one of law, not morals. I care not one whit for what the Supreme Court of the President or Congress might say. I have made arguments of law.
Also, setting the liberty discussion aside, why is is a bad idea to get my child vaccinated against something that is proven to cause cancer? One shot now, and stop cancer when she is 40 or 50? Women die of cervical cancer. A shot now to prevent that then. And I am not going to do that because I am paranoid about a drug company?
The thing is, I have no desire to make that call for you – you get to make that call for your family and your daughter. Just like I get to make the call for mine….
If you trust the vaccine was made properly and given properly and that’s your considered opinion, that’s fine. Get one. That’s great.
But if you don’t, the government should not be able to coerce you to do so.
However doctors convinced parents to take this leap fifty years ago, they need to do again. Make a good argument for the vaccines, and get that argument out to parents. Please don’t force parents to do this against their will.
Bloomberg wanted to force all preschoolers to take flu vaccines this past year. Well, flu vaccines are newly minted every year. They haven’t been tested on children (it’s illegal, immoral, and unethical to test drugs on children). I’d have trouble with flu vaccines for my children.
The human body is a sovereign nation. And no one has the right to invade it without the nation’s official permission.
Talk me into it. Don’t force me into it.
Robert E Lee: #23 “As for the argument “you knew what you were in for when you signed up,” ask any first year Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine if they knew everything that was required of them before they signed up.”
Marine here. We were lined up at the dispensary. The corpsman came down the line with something that gave multiple shots at a single time, so I assume that I was getting multiple vaccines. Whatever they did, not one of us could march for a while, the legs did not work quite right. The drill instructors accused us “ladies” of not wanting to march, so they took us to the sandpit for some mountain climbers.
Robert, thank you for reminding me of those fond memories I have of boot camp.
Of note, whatever they gave me, I did not have to have them again. No idea if they worked or not.
I have an impression from reading. There is a major portion of the population that falls in a statistical norm. When they get the vaccine, it is beneficial.
There is another very small group for which the vaccine does no good but also no harm. Kind of like water off a duck’s back so to speak.
Then there is another very small group for which the vaccine is actual harm, and could be fatal.
If we can save 97 out of 100, should we? I seem to fall into the majority for whom things tend to work, or if they don’t work on me, I don’t know it. In any case, I don’t seem to be patient zero spreading a pathogen around.
Perhaps if Merck could come up with a test that would identify the minute percentage of people who shrug it off or are actually harmed, we’d know who should not get the vaccine.
Of import, noting Robert E Lee‘s difficulty from above, identifying the quality of the serum or vaccine is vitally important. The lawsuit against the manufacturer, if such was allowed, won’t compensate the people who will suffer from this failure.
Ask the thalidomide babies.
“Ask the thalidomide babies.”
Indeed.
@Donald Todd
I had to stay current on most vaccines because I was independently deployable. I didn’t have a problem with any but the anthrax vaccine that I recall.
Giving all the injections at one time is a really stupid way to vaccinate anyone. Better to spread them out and not overly tax the body.
I’m not against vaccines in general. I find most to be helpful. But I would like a choice.
This seems like a good example of why vaccines should be mandatory only on the local level of the individual physician, school, hospital, etc., where it’s possible to make prudent decisions about individual cases.
Yes. It seems like there are a lot of factors that go into deciding whether giving a vaccine is a good decision in any particular situation. There are times when a physician would be negligent to give a particular vaccine, and other times when he would be negligent not too give it. I think any mandatory vaccination policy or law would have to give physicians an option to give a patient a waiver when the situation warranted it.
And the other case besides that one is? Thalidomide was awful. But, to say that drugs that pass the FDA are going to be like that is uninformed. The FDA refuses to approve many medications that have been used for years in Europe with no ill effects. The problem is not bad stuff getting through; it is good stuff not coming to market in time to save lives.
Big court cases against drug companies is not an indication of true safety. Silicone Breast Implants were blamed for everything under the sun without proof. They still got big wins.
I think there should be informed consent in the military and a right to refuse. And that right means that is not the place for you. If someone does have a reaction, they should be treated for it.
Bryan, I envy the faith you have in pharmaceutical research. I don’t think pharmaceutical companies are evil, but I know that science is always moving, there are few things that are “settled” science. Eating fats causes heart disease? There’s evidence that may not be the case. The whole premise for mandatory vaccination is that vaccination works. Well, antibiotics worked, until new antibiotics were needed because of resistant strains of bacteria. Are you positive that vaccines that worked 20 years ago are still as useful? It is not that there are more cases besides the thalidomide, at least not at that scale, but medical errors abound, doctors are human, and we shouldn’t count on their infallibility. Why would I trust the government to determine when something is “settled science” so that they can make anything mandatory in matters related to health? You are clearly convinced, but you must admit that medicine is not an exact science. Not yet.
And therein lies a beef I have with the military. I took the shots and had a bad reaction, you take your chances when you join. But I think the military should take care of those who were injured, whether the shot that caused the injury came from a gun or a syringe.
Doctors didn’t have to do anything 50 years ago to convince parents to get their kids vaccinated. The horrible effects of vaccine-preventable illnesses did that. Do we want to go back to a time when kids are dying all the time from preventable infectious disease? We are headed in that direction, and a FB acquaintance of mine, a pediatrician, says she thinks that we will have to reach that point before people will begin to see sense.
In fact, we learned entirely the wrong lesson from the thalidomide story, and the overcautiousness and over-regulation that resulted from the reaction to the story of thalidomide is responsible for much, much more suffering than thalidomide ever caused.
Wow. You are so misreading what I am saying.
Yes, I think they still work as well as they did 50 years ago, because we do not have mass incidents of the diseases they stop. The only reason these diseases are on the rise is because more and more people are not using them.
I am not putting my “faith in science” I am seeing with my own two eyes how things work.
One issue with vaccines is the rent seeking, which is atrocious: another is the politics of disease. We are beginning to vaccinate against behavior based diseases, diseases that can be avoided by not doing things we probably ought not to be doing anyway. In other words vaccinate a whole population in order to make bad behavior safer for a subset of the population. College age children are the focus of the second type of push, but in both cases mandating vaccination would be wrong and deeply objectionable. One effect of the comprehensive approach to vaccination is the weakening of the over all case for mandatory vaccination as a valid public health measure. There is no question that the polio, smallpox, and pertussis vaccinations are among the great achievements of medical science and they should be mandatory. But when you try to mandate the whole alphabet cocktail, you risk equating polio with chicken pox in the minds of distrusting skeptics. If you want to keep the tool, limit its use to true public health protection. With regard to doctors refusing treatment to those who will not follow a diagnosis; they certainly have the right, but it is arrogant. This is my body, it is the doctor’s job to give me information so I can make a decision. I am entitled to decide, he is not entitled to command. Anyway, doctor’s inability to make a case for the prescribed treatment should reflect more on the doctor than the patient.
In NY several vaccinations are required to attend, though exemptions are allowed. Following some recent outbreaks in the area, including measles, our nurse sent out an email reminding us that if there is an outbreak in our schools, the vaccine free children will not be allowed to attend.
Thalidomide was a drug intended to relieve morning sickness, not a life saving medication or vaccine.
Not as long as you make going to school the law of the land. It is not a question of do I want my kid to go to school. It is I MUST send my kid to school or I am arrested. That is a little different thing. Now if you want to give people money to send their kid to any school they wish or home school with it then you might have a better argument about vaccinations required for public school.
This is an issue I have a hard time getting very excited over. I received vaccinations and so have my children and grandchildren. The polio, smallpox, and DPT vaccines have certainly made mankind healthier.
I do have reservations.
First, if I were a state legislator before voting for any kind of vaccination mandate, I would demand an extremely high threshold showing of (1) safety (which, of course, can never be 100%) and (2) serious negative consequences to the public as a result of people contracting the disease. (Not every disease demands widespread vaccination, and we must prevent rent-seekers from turning state legislators into their marketing department).
Second, I’m for some form of religious/conscience exemption.
I heard an interesting report on the radio today. It might have been a misstatement, for all I know, but the reporter said it twice.
While reporting on a recent outbreak of measles, the reporter mentioned that nearly 40% of those infected had never been immunized! Can you believe these people?!
First thought that ran through my mind was, “Doesn’t that mean that 60% of the infected are immunized?! Seems like they should be doing better statistically if it was working . . .”
I’m hypersensitive to every drug out there, as is my son. We were both vaccinated in the old days, when it was still for only a couple things, but if I had a child now, no way would I subject it to the proffered vaccine cocktail. My father, dying of cancer in his 40s, could only tolerate baby aspirin.
The pro-vaccine crowd is very scary to me. I would rather be thrown in prison than comply. I heard Bill Gates was all for forced vaccinations. Seems fascist to me.
Another serious issue connected with vaccines is the use of aborted fetus tissue in their production. Here is a link to the list of vaccines that use aborted fetuses: http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeNotes/VaccinesAbortion_FetalTissue.html