Should vaccinations be mandatory??

[CrownPrinceBandar]

I recently came across this topic while surfing. Turns out, my home state (WV) and Mississippi disallow any exemption to vaccination for other than medical reasons. Other states such as Massachusetts and Pennsylvania allow exemptions to vaccination for philosophical and religious reasons, as well as medical.

Is WV and MS violating their citizens right to freedom of religion by making their citizens receive vaccinations against dangerous diseases such as chickenpox or hepatitis? Or is the threat of disease greater than Constitutional freedom?

I'm conflicted on this one. First, I support folks individual rights regarding behavior that is in step with their personal beliefs. And considering that some proteins in some chickenpox vaccines come from aborted fetuses (see provided link) may give some pro-lifers some pause about using the product.

However, doesn't the threat of disease give the govt "eminent domain" in this issue? Can folks be forced to accept the vaccine, despite religious and philosophical oppositions, for the sake of "national good?" How much freedom can be considered "relinquishable" ?

Links:

http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/hotnews/42h2393417.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37258

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/92601.php

Just some food for thought. I feel issues like these really test the resolve of folks in this country. If we allow, exemption to vaccination due to religion, why should we oppose pulling the plug on terminally ill folks on life support? On the other hand, if vaccinations are too important to the health of the nation as to override philosophical oppositions, where is the line where national good stops, and individual rights begin?

Just some food for thought.

[mac2]

1. Not until the FDA cleans up it's act...and vaccines are safe....

The drug companies only care about cost not our safety. We had safe vaccines in the past without mercury, etc.

[terryg11]

2. question?

if everyone in my town got vaccinated except me for chickenpox and then I came down with it, could I still spread it to the others who had been vaccinated?

and what about those VERRY RARE few for whom such vaccinations are fatal? Are they still forced to take the vaccination because if they didnnt they would be putting everyone else at risk?

[CrownPrinceBandar]

9. I thought about that too...

I think you present an ideal situation. I think the gov't is trying to say that not everyone will have access to immunization. That there will always be someone left behind or didn't get the message, so by passing such overarching measures the gov't can limit dangerous loose ends.

WV ans MS DO limit vaccinations to those who have medical conditions in which the vaccs can prove to be fatal.

[Lizz612]

13. Your first question: No.

Thats exactly why they were vaccinated. The only exception is if you got a really really weird strain of it, but that would depend upon how exactly the chicken pox vaccine works.

The reverse of this is how small pox was contained; find the infected person, vaccinate everyone around them, the bug has no where hospitable to go and thats the end.

edit puctuation ; vs. ,

[mopinko]

14. so everyone else takes the risk

and you don't have to?

[strategery blunder]

18. But if you don't take the vaccine,

you increase greatly your risk of getting sick.

[trotsky]

17. First question: Yes

Yes, because no vaccine is able to provide immunity in 100% of its recipients. That's because sometimes the body doesn't recognize the pathogen, and so never develops antibodies. So it's possible to receive a vaccination for something and yet still be susceptible to that disease.

(This is primarily the reason why there are "booster" shots - if the first shot didn't work, the 2nd and/or 3rd probably will.)

Granted, vaccine effectiveness rates are generally in the high-90% range, but there will always be some that don't "take." That just further underscores the need to vaccinate as many people as possible.

Hopefully Snow will see this thread and add his experience, he's provided a LOT in past threads about vaccination.

[movonne]

3. No

[Exultant Democracy]

4. Yes, no one has the right to spread sickness

[democracyindanger]

5. No

But like most things, in some cases, yes.

If a person refusing a vaccination is a proven public health threat (like tuberculosis), then I think the government is simply doing the right thing.

But at the same time, the government shouldn't be able to just decide what they're going to fill my veins with and force me to do it, which is what this bill seems like it does. Sop to the pharmaceutical industry, anyone?

Personally, I'm of the mind that overuse of vaccinations leads to stronger mutations. Take influenza, for example.

[Exultant Democracy]

8. Influenza mutates at a rapid rate and that has nothing

to do with vaccinations. On the other hand with mandatory vaccinations we gain the ability to eradicate viruses that are more stable such as polio.

[mopinko]

6. should we require people to hook up to the sewer?

or should we allow them to shit on the sidewalk? i agree that vaccines could be safer, tho i doubt they will ever be perfectly safe. nontheless, they save thousands of lifes every year. no free lunch.

"If we allow, exemption to vaccination due to religion, why should we oppose pulling the plug on terminally ill folks on life support? "
legally speaking, we don't. with few, well publicized exceptions, if i have clearcut legal authority to do so, i can pull the plug.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

10. Agreed...

my point was that there is a serious conflict between the freedoms laid out for us in the BOR and the reality of life in this world. Like one poster said above, that if everybody had access, then maybe it wouldn't be such a problem, but its clearly not the case in this world, hence pre-emptive strikes on disease.

[Ilsa]

7. How is a parent supposed to prove a history of medical

problems to a board? Are they going to have to provide proof that their child will absolutely react poorly to a vax, or will they accept the fact that someone else in the family suffered and adverse event? I know a family here that had an adverse event with their first born. That child is permanently and severely disabled. Their second child is not being vaxxed.

I don't think it is right to force anyone to accept a medical procedure against their will. Period. The best we can do is explain the risks of not being vaxed, provide free and low-cost vaxes, and allow parents to make a decision as to whether they want to proceed or claim an exemption. Most parents opt for vaxing.

BTW, my kids were vaxed for chicken pox. Looks like one of them got it anyway, but even the doctor wasn't sure.

As for hepatitis, it depends on which one you are talking about. I'm not so sure I agree with vaxing infants for hepatitis B, as that is only transmitted through blood and sexual contact. I'd rather my kids get vaxed for Hep B when they are 10-12 years old.

[will work 4 food]

11. I always

take my vacation. Why do they have to be madatory? I think it should be mandatory that everyone gets 4 weeks their first year!.

[Ysabel]

12. if you never register yourself...

or your children with any govt. institution - nor with any institution that reports to the government - it will be harder for them to find out that you even exist - let alone try to force you to do anything...

just a thought...

[Dookus]

15. No

but people who refuse to be vaccinated or have their children vaccinated should be permanently separated from the sane people.

[bicentennial_baby]

19. This is one issue

where I have to take the unpopular stance. I agree with you, unvaccinated persons are a potential danger to the rest of society, imho, especially if it were to occur on a mass scale.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.