Case 2
Chloe is excited to begin preschool, but her start is being delayed as she has not been immunized. Shortly after her older brother Brett was vaccinated, he became increasingly withdrawn and was eventually diagnosed as autistic. Chloe?s parents are convinced that the shots Brett received are responsible for his autism, despite assurances from their pediatrician that no evidence supports this belief. They refuse to have Chloe immunized.
Under state law parents can appeal for an exemption to the mandated vaccinations for medical, religious, or philosophical reasons. Chloe?s doctor does not support a claim for a medical exemption, and so Chloe?s parents have retained a lawyer to explore an exemption based on religious or philosophical grounds. The school district has informed them that even if the exemption is accepted, if there is an incidence of a vaccine – preventable disease in the school or community, Chloe may be required to stay at home until the disease is no longer present for her own safety and that of others. Her parents think this is excessively cautious, and are concerned about the quarantine policy?s effect on Chloe?s academic success in grade school.
Despite the great success of mandatory vaccination for children in improving public health, controversy and contradiction surround the issue. Controlling vaccine–preventable diseases in school–age children has been proven to be the most effective way to prevent epidemics, as the highest incidence of vaccine–preventable disease occurs in children. As a result, the federal Public Health Service Act requires immunization of children, but allows for state–sanctioned exemptions. Most states require immunization for school enrollment, but allow exemptions for medical, religious, or philosophical reasons. Exceptions are also made for children for whom vaccination is contraindicated ( for example, some cancer patients) as the risks outweigh the potential benefits to them, and they are protected from exposure to diseases by the immunization of those around them.
Opponents of mandatory immunization cite the occurrences of serious adverse effects, constitutional protection of religious and other freedoms, and the right of parents to make health decisions for their children. They cite the lack of a consensus in scientific research available on adverse affects of vaccines. In particular, opponents point out the lack of large, longitudinal studies of diverse populations on the long–term effects of immunization and its correlation with numerous diseases. Parents are concerned that pediatricians are not giving them the complete information required for informed consent to medical procedures, but downplaying the risks or failing to mention them at all. Civil rights advocates raise concerns about legislators practicing medicine by substituting their judgment for that of qualified physicians. Other opponents question the use of governmental power to restrict the liberty of uninfected and unvaccinated individuals to associate with others, where in the past quarantine was used to isolate infected individuals from others to prevent the transmission of disease.
The courts have repeatedly ruled that mandatory immunization is not unconstitutional.