I'm interested to learn about the case law about this as it pertains to the constitutionality of disallowing a religious exemption.
Some common vaccines are derived from human fetal cell lines, and those fetal cell lines are themselves derived from a handful of elective abortions. For many of those vaccines, there are alternatives that are not derived from human fetal cell lines, but not all.
Several religious denominations that oppose abortion, e.g. the Catholic Church, have addressed this issue and said that such vaccines can and should be used, so long as there is no reasonable alternative and there is a proportionate reason. (The Church's reasoning, in case you're curious, is that the vaccines' connection to abortion is considered remote cooperation.)
But even though some denominations see the vaccines as permissible, I suppose it might be possible for a person, motivated by religious belief, to be completely on board with the efficacy of the vaccine but oppose how it was created on moral grounds, and so demand a religious exemption.
Typically in the U.S., religious beliefs must be reasonably accommodated. I would think that someone who objects to the vaccine mandate on religious grounds could make the argument that if it is possible for anyone to be accommodated (in this case, those with medical issues), then accommodation itself should be considered reasonable, and it's just a matter of determining whether accommodating both is so risky as to be unreasonable.
In other words, if we're willing to assume X amount of risk by allowing medical exemptions, then it follows that at least some risk can be tolerated. And if a religious objector can show that additionally assuming Y risk by allowing religious objections is not substantially more risky, then I think they could make the case that it should be considered reasonable to also accommodate religious beliefs.
Permitting a small number of exemptions does not compromise hive immunity. Permitting a large number of exceptions does. The article states an objective example of where hive immunity was compromised due to a lack of vaccination. So there is sound scientific reasoning for disallowing religious exemption for public health reasons.
In terms of priorities, it seems reasonable for medical exceptions (eg. "this child is allergic to the vaccination so is more likely to die if it is administered") to come before religious ones ("my child won't suffer from an increased risk of harm [than other children receiving the vaccination] but I don't want the vaccine to be administered").
It might even be reasonable to permit a small quota of religious objections, so that the total number of exceptions does not compromise hive immunity. But then how would it be decided which children would not be permitted in this group?
The other option would be to simply ban children not vaccinated for religious reasons from the ability to spread disease by excluding them from schools. This seems to be the proposition made already though:
> "I am concerned about opportunities for equal education," because unvaccinated kindergarteners would require home schooling, Bates said.
>But attempts to add a religious excuse there have failed. In 1979, the Mississippi Supreme Court wrote a strongly worded defense of the state program, “Is it mandated by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that innocent children, too young to decide for themselves, are to be denied the protection against crippling and death that immunization provides because of a religious belief adhered to by a parent or parents?”
Religious practices aren't covered by the Constitution once they start causing death to others. Human sacrifice may be a religious practice but it is one that wouldn't be allowed to be practiced.
The medical exemption exists because giving them the vaccine increases risk (to the recipient). It's not a choice regarding acceptable risk; it's consistently choosing the least risky option.
> "The only thing we can do is continue to educate our officials" about the personal belief exemption, said Lisa Bakshi, a mother from Placer County. "The parents who do it now do it for very legitimate reasons. We don't do it because we are uninformed."
This isn't being uninformed, it's being actively uninformed.
I certainly hope this makes it past the Assembly and into law. I am stunned at how rancorous the debate has been though. If I ever questioned if there was a problem with science education, that question has been soundly answered. Way too many people are getting through our primary education system with absolutely no understanding of how science, as a process and discipline works. And that is a very sad thing indeed.
It's astounding how the more educated and affluent areas are the ones with the highest level of exemptions. So its not so much as science education, but people's disconnect between science in theory and how it's applied in real life.
It's not the middle class or lower middle class and poor who opt out the most but upper middle and wealthy out of irrational fear.
Way too many people are getting through our primary education system with absolutely no understanding of how science, as a process and discipline works.
It's a question of trust in scientific authorities, not about their knowledge or lack thereof.
No amount of understanding or attempt at education will dissuade anti-vaccine parents.
I am not so sure it is an issue of understanding science as it is about personal liberties. While I am not opposed to vaccinations, lord knows I have had them all, but I am not keen on government mandates. Especially when the example they give, at least in this article, to support the bill is 136 people out of a state of 37MIL.
If you wish to force vaccination then there needs to be copious oversight of those supplying them.
Perhaps now people will stop calling it a 'controversy'? That word makes it the concerns seem legitimate.
There is no such 'controversy' in Brazil, for instance. The vaccination programs have been very successful. Several life-threatening diseases were greatly reduced or even eradicated, no matter how poor the region. We did have a revolt, in 1904 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Revolt)
Vaccines are one of the humankind's greatest accomplishments. To avoid vaccinations due to fuzzy "religious grounds" is to turn the clock backwards at least a century.
(11) Any other disease deemed appropriate by the department,
taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Item 11 bothers me a bit, I don't want it to become a sales channel for vaccine makers. I think vaccines in 1-10 have a solid public health foundation, but 11 leaves a door open for abuse.
From http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb...: Diphtheria, Hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b, Measles, Mumps, Pertussis (whooping cough), Poliomyelitis, Rubella, Tetanus, Varicella, and "Any other disease deemed appropriate by the department, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and
the American Academy of Family Physicians."
Judging from the article, I assume that last clause was removed in the final version, but I'm guessing the rest stayed the same.
It's about time we stop giving religious beliefs any special treatment at all compared to actual measurable evidence (e.g. inhumanely killing animals, mutilating/indoctrinating children, etc.).
Just FYI, this is an inaccurate headline ("No More Vaccine Exemptions: California Senate Overwhelmingly Passes SB 277").
"No More Vaccine Exemptions" will be true only IF this passes the Assembly, where it faces a tougher fight. (Then the governor must sign it, but this is expected to happen.)
If you see an inaccurate headline you can always email us ([email protected]). We change those all the time, but there are too many comments posted here for us to see them all.
"The science is clear: Vaccines are safe and efficacious."
Nothing is 100% safe. So when they say something like this, it's pretty scary. I don't think it's causing autism, but some people do have ill effects due to vaccines.
Ah, excellent. Taking a more nuanced view than the simple binary "safe" or "not safe".
Let's continue down that path. Since nothing is 100% safe, we ought to choose the most safe option. And since we're talking about government policy here, it's not about what's safest for your kids, but what's safest for everyone. So what's safer, vaccines, or measles?
I think rlpb had it right elsewhere in thread - this is about a tragedy of the commons. Anti-vaxxers don't want to ban vaccines, they want to be the only ones not taking them.
Safe is a relative term in medicine. It is unquestionable that for the vast majority of people when vaccinated as directed getting vaccines is much much safer than not getting vaccines. Furthermore, getting vaccines protects society as a whole.
I see a lot of pro vax people here. (Wonder how many of you actually have children less than 2 years old). Anyway here are some things that concerned me:
1. "Vaccines are safe" - The U.S. has the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program [1]. In short it pays people who are hurt by vaccines. If vaccines are so safe why is this program needed?
2. "We had these vaccines as Kids" - The vaccine injury program made vaccine manufactures not be liable for injuries cause by their vaccine. This happened in 1988. "Since 1988, the U.S. childhood immunization schedule has rapidly expanded"[2]. In you are older than 28 you did NOT receive a lot of these vaccines as a kid.
There is a whole lot more but I don't feel like writing a book.
In medical terms vaccines are incredibly safe. Medicine is a cost-benefits analysis. The risk of getting vaccines (as directed) is much less than getting the diseases vaccinated against.
You have to look at it as "what choice provides the most benefit?" which is how medical interventions work.
I hesitate to reply here but some additional points to consider (esp. re item 11 in the list of vax):
- exponential growth in the number of vaccines over time
- non-leathal nature of some of the newer vaccinees i.e common flu (scope creep)
- concerns around the early age to be injecting so many foriegn substances (monkey genes) at the same time
- trust in a for-profit medical system (revolving door governance)
- science is not perfect
- mandatory medical procedures should be viewed as a slippery slope
- no-one died in the Disneyland outbreak
- perspective: "in 2011, outbreaks resulted in over 30,000 cases, 7 deaths"
http://shotofprevention.com/2015/01/22/disneyland-measles-ou...
This article survives on HN because it strokes people'e scientific literacy egos and lets them feel outraged and/or look down on others. This is not of sufficient intellectual interest to warrant being on the front page.
I think the passage of a law mandating vaccination with no religious exemption is rather interesting, personally. Yeah, the vaccine side is not that interesting. Vaccines are great, we all know it. But the political side is very interesting.
[+] [-] jawns|11 years ago|reply
Some common vaccines are derived from human fetal cell lines, and those fetal cell lines are themselves derived from a handful of elective abortions. For many of those vaccines, there are alternatives that are not derived from human fetal cell lines, but not all.
Several religious denominations that oppose abortion, e.g. the Catholic Church, have addressed this issue and said that such vaccines can and should be used, so long as there is no reasonable alternative and there is a proportionate reason. (The Church's reasoning, in case you're curious, is that the vaccines' connection to abortion is considered remote cooperation.)
But even though some denominations see the vaccines as permissible, I suppose it might be possible for a person, motivated by religious belief, to be completely on board with the efficacy of the vaccine but oppose how it was created on moral grounds, and so demand a religious exemption.
Typically in the U.S., religious beliefs must be reasonably accommodated. I would think that someone who objects to the vaccine mandate on religious grounds could make the argument that if it is possible for anyone to be accommodated (in this case, those with medical issues), then accommodation itself should be considered reasonable, and it's just a matter of determining whether accommodating both is so risky as to be unreasonable.
In other words, if we're willing to assume X amount of risk by allowing medical exemptions, then it follows that at least some risk can be tolerated. And if a religious objector can show that additionally assuming Y risk by allowing religious objections is not substantially more risky, then I think they could make the case that it should be considered reasonable to also accommodate religious beliefs.
[+] [-] rlpb|11 years ago|reply
In terms of priorities, it seems reasonable for medical exceptions (eg. "this child is allergic to the vaccination so is more likely to die if it is administered") to come before religious ones ("my child won't suffer from an increased risk of harm [than other children receiving the vaccination] but I don't want the vaccine to be administered").
It might even be reasonable to permit a small quota of religious objections, so that the total number of exceptions does not compromise hive immunity. But then how would it be decided which children would not be permitted in this group?
The other option would be to simply ban children not vaccinated for religious reasons from the ability to spread disease by excluding them from schools. This seems to be the proposition made already though:
> "I am concerned about opportunities for equal education," because unvaccinated kindergarteners would require home schooling, Bates said.
[+] [-] __z|11 years ago|reply
It has held up in court in Mississippi
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/30/m...
>But attempts to add a religious excuse there have failed. In 1979, the Mississippi Supreme Court wrote a strongly worded defense of the state program, “Is it mandated by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that innocent children, too young to decide for themselves, are to be denied the protection against crippling and death that immunization provides because of a religious belief adhered to by a parent or parents?”
Religious practices aren't covered by the Constitution once they start causing death to others. Human sacrifice may be a religious practice but it is one that wouldn't be allowed to be practiced.
[+] [-] tedunangst|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluehazed|11 years ago|reply
This isn't being uninformed, it's being actively uninformed.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|11 years ago|reply
It's not the middle class or lower middle class and poor who opt out the most but upper middle and wealthy out of irrational fear.
But yes, glad this loophole gets closed.
[+] [-] kiba|11 years ago|reply
It's a question of trust in scientific authorities, not about their knowledge or lack thereof.
No amount of understanding or attempt at education will dissuade anti-vaccine parents.
[+] [-] DamnYuppie|11 years ago|reply
If you wish to force vaccination then there needs to be copious oversight of those supplying them.
[+] [-] outworlder|11 years ago|reply
There is no such 'controversy' in Brazil, for instance. The vaccination programs have been very successful. Several life-threatening diseases were greatly reduced or even eradicated, no matter how poor the region. We did have a revolt, in 1904 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Revolt)
Vaccines are one of the humankind's greatest accomplishments. To avoid vaccinations due to fuzzy "religious grounds" is to turn the clock backwards at least a century.
[+] [-] jakeogh|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] istvan__|11 years ago|reply
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/wealthy-la...
[+] [-] walterbell|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sigzero|11 years ago|reply
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...
[+] [-] digikata|11 years ago|reply
(1) Diphtheria.
(2) Haemophilus influenzae type b.
(3) Measles.
(4) Mumps.
(5) Pertussis (whooping cough).
(6) Poliomyelitis.
(7) Rubella.
(8) Tetanus.
(9) Hepatitis B.
(10) Varicella (chickenpox).
(11) Any other disease deemed appropriate by the department, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Item 11 bothers me a bit, I don't want it to become a sales channel for vaccine makers. I think vaccines in 1-10 have a solid public health foundation, but 11 leaves a door open for abuse.
[+] [-] lkbm|11 years ago|reply
Judging from the article, I assume that last clause was removed in the final version, but I'm guessing the rest stayed the same.
[+] [-] ermintrude|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xacaxulu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mapgrep|11 years ago|reply
"No More Vaccine Exemptions" will be true only IF this passes the Assembly, where it faces a tougher fight. (Then the governor must sign it, but this is expected to happen.)
(I wish HN headlines about politics were half as accurate as the technical ones. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9276841)
[+] [-] dang|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sctb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulhauggis|11 years ago|reply
Nothing is 100% safe. So when they say something like this, it's pretty scary. I don't think it's causing autism, but some people do have ill effects due to vaccines.
[+] [-] cwp|11 years ago|reply
Let's continue down that path. Since nothing is 100% safe, we ought to choose the most safe option. And since we're talking about government policy here, it's not about what's safest for your kids, but what's safest for everyone. So what's safer, vaccines, or measles?
I think rlpb had it right elsewhere in thread - this is about a tragedy of the commons. Anti-vaxxers don't want to ban vaccines, they want to be the only ones not taking them.
[+] [-] __z|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wehadfun|11 years ago|reply
1. "Vaccines are safe" - The U.S. has the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program [1]. In short it pays people who are hurt by vaccines. If vaccines are so safe why is this program needed?
2. "We had these vaccines as Kids" - The vaccine injury program made vaccine manufactures not be liable for injuries cause by their vaccine. This happened in 1988. "Since 1988, the U.S. childhood immunization schedule has rapidly expanded"[2]. In you are older than 28 you did NOT receive a lot of these vaccines as a kid.
There is a whole lot more but I don't feel like writing a book.
[1]http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html [2]http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038256.htm
[+] [-] __z|11 years ago|reply
In medical terms vaccines are incredibly safe. Medicine is a cost-benefits analysis. The risk of getting vaccines (as directed) is much less than getting the diseases vaccinated against.
You have to look at it as "what choice provides the most benefit?" which is how medical interventions work.
[+] [-] centrinoblue|11 years ago|reply
"Season’s failed flu shot raises questions about immunization program" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/healt...
[+] [-] jessriedel|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nosideeffects|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|11 years ago|reply