Today during the mandatory vaccination Q & A session I could tell that there didn't seem to be much, if any, objections to mandatory vaccinations. I have this same belief, if we want society to be healthy and safe we should be using simple techniques such as vaccinations to ensure this. However I want to raise the most common objection to mandatory vaccinations which is, don't we have a right to personal liberty?
As I talked this over with Professor Tresan the other day he brought up a good point, if one individual says they aren't going to get vaccinated will that really change the outcome? And the short answer to this is no, one person choosing to not vaccinate won't effect the overall vaccination efforts. But than doesn't this lead to a slippery slope? If one person chooses not to vaccinate than why should anybody have to vaccinate? I'd love to hear what everybody else thinks about this issue...
I'm inclined to agree with you that there is a definite risk of slippery slope when it comes to granting exemptions without medical (or possibly religious) reasons. This already seems to be happening in wealthy neighborhoods in California, for example, where parents are aware that vaccinations work, but allowed to have exemptions based on personal/philosophical beliefs, and as a result, a lot of parents thought they could take advantage of herd immunity and not 'risk' vaccinating their children. The result was a classic case of the tragedy of commons, where too few people did this and kids started getting sick and dying from preventable illnesses.
ReplyDeleteI also think the 'vaccines cause autism' is a terrible objection, even if one were to concede that they did. Obviously there is a ridiculous amount of evidence to support that they don't, but even if they did, its pretty ableist to be willing to risk your child's healthy and life simply because you don't want a child with autism.
I think the best objection probably lies in the enforcement of mandatory vaccinations. While most agree that mandatory vaccinations are a good idea, I think few would be okay with government workers physically restraining people and forcibly vaccinating them if they didn't willingly agree. A lot of proposed solutions are along the lines of requiring for public schools. The issue with this is that there are going to be some parents that will homeschool their children as a result, and the children then won't actually ever be vaccinated and that child will be potentially deprived of access to a good education if homeschooling isn't adequate. Other proposed solutions are similar, such as charging fines or cutting access to various government benefits if an individual fails to vaccinate themselves or their children. The problem here to me is its coercive nature - we're essentially forcing people who are simply fearful for the wellbeing of their children into a situation where they don't feel like they have any good options. It just seems sort of cruel to force somebody who is just scared into doing something they don't want to do, even if its only due to their own ignorance. In fact, too aggressive of a policy could further convince delusional conspiracy theorists that vaccinations are actually government attempts at mind control or something ridiculous like that. People actually think this: Polio has almost been eradicated, but persists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Nigeria, largely due to mistrust. People there think that it will cause sterilization, or AIDS, or some other ploy from the West designed to hurt local populations somehow. Recently the Pakistani government arrested about 1200 parents for refusing to vaccinate their children, and would only be freed once they signed an undertaking that they would not oppose vaccination. It seems like if somebody is truly just fearful and ignorant, arresting them for that seems pretty cruel. But, I suppose if it works it might be less cruel than allowing innocent people to suffer from polio. There also remains the issue of religious objections. I believe Jehovas Witnesses, for instance, have religious objections to most medical procedures like blood transfusions and vaccinations. If they literally believe they are going to be eternally damned if they do these things, then it seems pretty cruel to put them in coercive situations like that.
ReplyDeleteAn important issue then seems to be how to change the minds of fearful/ignorant parents. I don't have any good answers. A lot of propose simply educating parents about vaccines. Ironically, new research suggests that actually makes it worse. In a recent study, with parents who were skeptical but sort of on the fence about vaccines, they tried two approaches: In one group, doctors started a conversation about vaccines, what the parents' concerns were, and provided data showing that vaccines were safe, parents were less likely to vaccinate their children (83% decided against). In the second group, doctors took a "presumptive" approach rather than starting a discussion, something to the effect of, "So, Johnnie's due for a DTaP and HiB today." No discussion, just assumed that the vaccine is ok. In this group, more than 70% choose to vaccinate their children. So, interestingly, it seems like the solution could be not to have more information about vaccines and how they're harmless, but rather to just make vaccines a 'default' in a lot of situations that people aren't likely to see as harmful or can easily opt-out of without a legitimate reason. Here's the article where I got that study: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/02/06/384322665/to-get-parents-to-vaccinate-their-kids-dont-ask-just-tell