Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine United States

44 US States Still Allow 'Religious Exemptions' For Vaccines (pewresearch.org) 426

An anonymous reader quotes the Pew Research Center: New York recently became the fifth state -- after California, Maine, Mississippi and West Virginia -- to enact a law requiring children in public school to be vaccinated unless they have a valid medical reason. Legislatures in several other states are considering similar legislation. Most states (44), however, allow children to be exempt from vaccinations due to religious concerns, according to a Pew Research Center analysis. And one state, Minnesota, allows for a broader exemption based on personal beliefs but does not explicitly mention religion... Among the states that specifically allow religious exemptions to vaccinations, 15 also allow exemptions for any type of nonreligious personal belief, according to the Center's analysis...

The action in New York came after the state became the center of a nationwide measles outbreak that has sickened more than 1,000 Americans in 28 states so far this year.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

44 US States Still Allow 'Religious Exemptions' For Vaccines

Comments Filter:
  • by Voyager529 ( 1363959 ) <voyager529@yahoo. c o m> on Sunday June 30, 2019 @01:47PM (#58850822)

    If vaccines are mandated, then it is established that the government can compel a citizen to be injected with a substance against their will.

    If vaccines are not mandated, we end up with measles outbreaks that affect the populace.

    The best solution I can come up with is to limit access to government services if one isn't vaccinated, but even then, we end up with 'papers, please', with extra steps.

    Go ahead, Slashdot. I'd sincerely like to hear how everyone else manages to reconcile individual freedom with social contract at this level.

    • by ToTheStars ( 4807725 ) on Sunday June 30, 2019 @02:00PM (#58850884)
      Refusing to vaccinate is particularly harmful to children, the elderly, and people with various medical conditions -- that is, third parties to the person who is not vaccinated. There's a compelling state interest in protecting those people, and it can only be done by compelling everyone else to be vaccinated. The same justification would not apply to 'happy pills' or whatever other state-mandated pharmaceuticals you are imagining.
      • Dosing everyone on Oxytocin would resolve racial hatred, conflicts, road rage, juvenile delinquency and street crime.

        Forcing everyone to take a daily dose of Oxytocin would definitely save thousands of lives per year by reducing homicides, fights, accidents.

        Everyone who was not taking their Oxytocin today carry a tenfold risk of violence towards innocent others.

        You must take your Oxytocin today. Please go to the local Oxytocin center to obtain your replacement dose. A Tetragrammaton cleric will guide you th

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The state should protect children's rights too. They have a right to basic healthcare that is provided free by the state, such as vaccines. And fluoride.

    • by fazig ( 2909523 ) on Sunday June 30, 2019 @02:02PM (#58850894)
      It's rather simple from my perspective. The slippery slope people make this out to be is mostly in their imagination.
      Something that is true for most slippery slopes that don't at least have some historic precedent. But I know that people love their "where does it stop?!" knee-jerks and are quick to draw comparisons between the most benign things and Hitler.

      Most of the civilized world already does not allow some religious practices that are harmful to the public. We don't allow human sacrifices any more, we're not quite fond of female genital mutilation as well for example. All of those may be perfectly valid religious and cultural practices of tradition as far as religion makes 'sense', which it often does not.
      So we already started to restrict some practices. Why? Here I think it is important to understand that religion and culture ought not to be except from criticism. Some religious and cultural traditions can be objectively terrible and may have no place in our society unless maybe it's between consenting adults.

      Personally I'd be in favour of the 2nd solution. Don't force them, but if they do not comply deny them access where their non-vaccinated children can endanger others. The "papers, please" isn't always a bad concept. A lot of it depends on the implementation. Especially in areas where the well being of others can be endangered it can make sense.
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The thing about vaccines (and fluoride) is that they are well understood to be safe.

        It's like arguing that the state shouldn't mandate clean water standards because some idiots think that drinking liquefied faeces is a good idea. It's far worse to endanger everyone just to indulge their stupidity, than to force everyone to get vaccinated.

    • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday June 30, 2019 @02:13PM (#58850950) Journal

      then it is established that the government can compel a citizen to be injected with a substance against their will.

      That is established, it's constitutional, and it's been confirmed by the supreme court. From an ethics standpoint, it's more ethical than the draft.

      There are some questions of personal liberty vs society that are hard. Here we have a situation that is a mild inconvenience to your personal freedom, in exchange for the extermination of a deadly disease for society. It's such a clear victory for society, that only extreme anarchists would oppose it.

      Here's another argument for it in the current situation. You claim that we compel citizens to be injected against their will, but that is wrong. Adults are not being injected against their will. We compel children to be injected against the will of their parents, for the safety of the children. There are lot's of situations where we violate the will of the parents on behalf of the children. Society chooses to protect children from extremely bad parenting if we can.

      • good answer.
    • Well, logically speaking, protecting the populations is of higher concern. The idea of "compel a citizen" is just an emotional and political idea, not a logical one. At some point you just cannot forbid the government from doing anything, that's not political but stupid. We place restrictions on what people cannot do all the time, and we have mandates for people all the time. There's no reason this is any different. Politics are fine, as long as people are using their brains instead of emotions.

    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      It is a false choice, individual freedom in this case means insufficient herd immunity. And this hit the most susceptible people in our society, the elderly and the young. One can believe or disbelieve well-tested science. However, as soon you act on those beliefs to endanger your kids, your grandparents, people you don't know, it is no longer religious freedom. It is arrogance.

    • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Sunday June 30, 2019 @03:06PM (#58851218) Journal
      You are way off base. The laws do NOT require that you inject your kid. The 5 states say that if you want your kid in public, charter school, or universities, and for several states, any medical jobs, than you must vaccinate. Otherwise, if your kid goes to private school (and they do not mind mass outbreaks), or is home schooled, or you have a none-medical job, then you can choose to not vaccinate. So, no, vaccines are not mandated, which means your first line is simply wrong.
    • by Ichijo ( 607641 )
      Or at least legislate information symmetry. Require that the unvaccinated identify themselves in public through some kind of visual cue so that others, especially those with weak immune systems and those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons, can keep their distance.
    • > Go ahead, Slashdot. I'd sincerely like to hear how everyone else manages to reconcile individual freedom with social contract at this level.

      Proper education.

    • Well first off, it's not entirely an issue of individual freedom because forgoing vaccines means you can become a direct danger to a nonconsenting party in a way uncontrollable by your behavior (since you're contagious before being sure you have the disease). Second, this is during childhood, not force vaccinating adults, and the state, for good reason, already takes a lot of decisions to medically endanger your child away, and a young child has no right to refuse medical care on their own, as informed cons
    • by Compuser ( 14899 )

      My personal take is that if an adult of sound mind does not wish to be vaccinated then it is should be their right to decline any such procedure. Contrary to the rhetoric, if you are vaccinated then this provides protection for yourself and if not then not. So if you do not vaccinate yourself then you just endanger yourself and others like you while anyone seeking to be protected can get vaccinated. There is no danger to society in this case at all.

      But... if an adult does not vaccinate their child (or someo

    • I would like to see vaccines created that actually work and don't rely on herd immunity. That way, anyone wanting to take their chances would only be endangering themselves. That would be the perfect balance between the individual and the populace.

      Now if you want to argue about forcing children to have vaccines ??? IDK.

    • The Governmental right of quarantine is well established.

    • If vaccines are mandated, then it is established that the government can compel a citizen to be injected with a substance against their will.

      Good. Welcome to society. Play by the rules, or go live elsewhere.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mapkinase ( 958129 )

      >If vaccines are not mandated, we end up with measles outbreaks that affect the populace.

      That's not a big deal. We really need to stop overacting over every single mishap overpublicized by click-hungry media and be cool about statistics.

    • Easy. You want social services for your kid? You dance to my tune. You don't wanna do what I ask from you? No money for you.

    • Mandatory immunization is defensible along the same lines as conscription. It'd be better if voluntary efforts are sufficient, but it isn't hard to see why it could be required for a functioning society if the voluntary efforts are insufficient.
  • Here is a truly hard choice.

    On the one hand, there is an undeniable public good by forcing all to vaccinate even if some people die. It will protect far more in the long term to truly eradicate some diseases.

    On the other hand, it's a pretty significant freedom to force medical procedures on anyone not comfortable with it.

    There are a lot of other forced medical procedures that would bring equal long term benefit... many more morally questionable.

    It seems like maybe the best solution is to work on real means

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      We have a way to get rid of those diseases: Vaccination. Smallpox is gone. Polio is very close to gone. The others... one day.

    • Most countries which mandate vaccination, do so for minor until 18 years old, e.g. as an adult you are free to enjoy your freedom, but as a child , just like some country impose you go to school, you are imposed vaccination. Minor do NOT enjoy all freedoms. They don't have a freedom of movement for example (they have to go where their parent want them to go, or the government), and do not have freedom of speech in some government building (school!). In some case medical procedure are even forced over the de
    • ...and it's that you won't be able to come up with an analogy to vaccines. Lasik surgery (or whatever) isn't going to mandated because you not having your vision corrected wont get other people sick or killed.

    • There are a lot of other forced medical procedures that would bring equal long term benefit... many more morally questionable.

      But that's the rub isn't it. Laws in society are fundamentally about upholding morals. We're not discussing morally questionable procedures. We're discussing procedures which would be morally questionable if they weren't followed. To extend beyond that puts you right in the slippery slope fallacy along with a lot of other silly posts here.

  • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday June 30, 2019 @02:03PM (#58850896) Journal
    Apparently there is only one religious sect opposed to vaccination [skepticalraptor.com], and it's not the Amish, Jehova's Witness, or Christian Scientist. All of those allow vaccines.

    Unless a person is a member of the Dutch Reform Church (how many of those are there?), they probably don't have any reason for a religious exemption.
    • Jesus would be so disappointed that Christians ascribe power to hierarchical churches.

      The Kingdom of God is within you.

    • by Empiric ( 675968 )
      Yes. The persistent attempt to smear all of "religion" based on a tiny minority is disingenuous and irrational.

      You'd think somebody would ask, say, "what about Buddhism?", but none of those discussing "anti-religion" would be able to respond until they found the actual issue at hand for them--Buddhism's stance on internet porn or whatever their personal sense of their own moral hazards are. Until they look that up, they wouldn't know if Buddhism also needs attacking in the name of vaccinations.
    • Apparently there is only one religious sect opposed to vaccination [skepticalraptor.com], and it's not the Amish, Jehova's Witness, or Christian Scientist. All of those allow vaccines. Unless a person is a member of the Dutch Reform Church (how many of those are there?), they probably don't have any reason for a religious exemption.

      Your article and information are old as that site parrots a Slate article from 2015.
      The religious we're talking about here are the "bible churches" and other "nondenominational" congregations. They won't show up in the surveys as they are unaffiliated with no broader organization

      There was an outbreak in the Dallas - Fort Worth area last year that primarily hit said churches. Beforehand the leadership was gung ho about not being vaccinated. After a little girl died, they quietly changed their tune. Y

  • by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Sunday June 30, 2019 @03:37PM (#58851348) Journal
    with their god, guns, and guts! I can't believe it! How DARE backwards, illiterate, inbred folks in hicksvilles like New York, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, Illinois, and others fall so far behind Mississippi and West Virginia in terms of basic concepts of public health?
  • by AtomicSymphonic ( 2570041 ) on Monday July 01, 2019 @01:07AM (#58853234)

    The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled over this insane discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    This was a 7-2 decision in favor of upholding vaccination rules made by the States.

    The Social Contract overrides personal liberties and freedoms granted by the US Constitution. The government MUST uphold the common welfare of the people, overriding your freedoms.

    End of discussion.

    You do not have the liberty to walk in public and infect other people with your nasty disease that you think, "Oh, it's nothing. I'm strong."

    Every time as case about vaccinations gets to federal court, these cases get thrown out. Go ahead and sue, New Yorkers and Californians. Your "freedom" to not vaccinate ends when you enter into public spaces. Period.

    • It is kind of funny, all you have to do is think about all the situations in which we empower the government to kill or imprison citizens and the inconvenience of a vaccine is relatively trivial.

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Working...