The measles “outbreak” — it’s not a plague — that has made headlines recently has become something of a political football among the talking heads, sparked by New Jersey Governor Chris Christy’s and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s comments that perhaps vaccinating children against measles should be the parents’ decision rather than the government’s. As Paul (a licensed doctor) noted, not all vaccines work for all children and there have been cases, extremely rare to be sure, when vaccines have caused mental and physical harm.
Liberals jumped all over that. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus argued that when it comes to child safety, the government has the right to trump parents, noting that “children must be buckled into car seats and later into seat belts. They must attend school. They cannot purchase cigarettes or alcohol, or work extended hours or in unsafe occupations.”
What Marcus conveniently omits is that there are state or federal laws in place that require every one of those safety procedures, and these laws were passed by legislatures, with the support of the people (or they wouldn’t have passed), including parents, indicating parental approval. That’s different than vaccinations.
Marcus also writes that, “One family’s irrational decision not to vaccinate threatens other families’ children as well.” First of all, Marcus can’t possibly know whether, in every instance, a parent’s decision not to vaccinate is “irrational.” Second, one family’s decision not to vaccinate its children won’t threaten other families’ children if those children are vaccinated. That’s the whole point of vaccinations.
Which is why vaccinating against disease is overwhelmingly the right call. My wife and I had our two daughters vaccinated against every known childhood disease, and we’re glad we did. But what Christy and Paul are saying is that, in a free country, we can decide for ourselves whether or not to accept a prevailing orthodoxy, including a government-sanctioned medical orthodoxy. Christian Scientists who think prayer will cure themselves and their children of diseases and therefore refuse medical treatment are almost always wrong. But it’s their God-given lives, meaning the State has no business making life-and-death decisions for them, and even the Supreme Court has ruled that you, not the government, are the final decision-maker with respect to your health.
But is that the case with your children’s health? This is at the heart of this vaccination debate. Are the parents, or is the government, the legal guardian of children’s bodies until the children reach an age in which they are mature enough to make their own decisions about their bodies?
Legalities and constitutional niceties aside, all of which I believe argue for the parents, to me the issue ultimately comes down to the fact that they are my children, not the government’s.
I agree about not vaccinating in a free country is a right of the parent. But that said, your rights don’t trump my rights. So if my child is exposed to your child carrying the disease and causes harm to mine, then by right I can legally take recourse against you. You have the freedom to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater where there is no fire, but should your speech cause harm to others you are responsible for it. Your reluctance to vaccinate can carry a consequence if you cause harm to others.
And Rand Paul may be a “licensed doctor” but his area of expertise is opthalmology, not pediatrics. That also seems like a convenient omission…
Thanks for writing, but as I said in the column, if your child is exposed to my child and my child has measles because I chose not to vaccinate him, the only way my child can harm your child is if you too decided not to vaccinate your child. If your child is vaccinated then he or she will not be harmed by my child – that is the whole point of vaccinations. Therefore, if you too decided not to vaccinate your child, and he or she was exposed to my child, you would have a tough time taking legal recourse against me (actually you would have a tough time taking legal recourse in any event. I know of no legal precedent in which one party successfully sued the other party because it was a victim of the spread of a communicable disease). Also, as it happens, the Supreme Court – Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., wrote the decision – has rule that you can’t falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Also, you are right that Rand Paul is not a pediatrician, but my guess is that, being a licensed doctor – and a politician with a history of saying things that get quoted – he researched his subject before speaking on it, and it is a fact that, in rare cases (as I said), vaccinations cause mental and physical harm. Again, thanks for your note.