AskDrSears - The Vaccine Book: Should Goverment have the Right to Make Vaccines Mandatory?

Should Goverment have the Right to Make Vaccines Mandatory?

Thursday, December 6, 2007

In an exclusive interview with Newsweek.com, Dr. Bob addresses the question “Should state governments have the right to make vaccines mandatory?”

The state of Maryland sued a couple thousand parents and students who had declined chickenpox and hepatitis B vaccines, literally forcing the parents to decide between having their pre-teens vaccinated for these diseases or face stiff fines. Maryland state law dictates that vaccines are mandatory, unless a family has religious objections. 29 other states have similar laws, while 20 states allow parents to decline vaccines simply for personal reasons.

This case raises the question, should states have the right to force vaccination? Personally, I say no. Vaccines should be a personal medical decision that every family living in a free country should have the right to make. Having said that, I must admit that if there were a very serious and contagious disease spreading through the country killing a considerable amount of people, I might agree that in this situation it might be a good idea for the government to insist on vaccinations for the public good, IF the public good is threatened.

In the case of hepatitis B and chickenpox, however, I can’t really say that these two diseases threaten public safety. Sure, hep B is bad, but it’s a sexually transmitted disease. So there are ways to prevent it and protect yourself, OR choose vaccination. And since chickenpox only kills about 1 in 65,000 people who catch it, you can’t really say that’s a threat to public safety either.

Hopefully more and more states will follow the example of us Californians (and 19 other states) and allow parents free choice in this matter.

Click here to read Dr. Bob’s exclusive interview with Newsweek.com.

Labels: Vaccine News

10 Comments:

At December 7, 2007 11:29 AM , Beth said...

Dear Dr. Bob,

THANK YOU!!! I received your book in the mail yesterday, and I finished it at 1:00 am ... I couldn't put it down! The information was exactly what I needed. I appreciate how clear and organized you presented each vaccine and disease and voiced honestly pros and cons. While I know you are pro-vaccine, I love the fact that you are understanding to those who hold a different view for their children. I will recommend your book to every mom I know, as well as my family doctor. What a comfort to know that I can now make an educated decision on the matter of vaccinating my children.

Thank you!
Beth in NC

P.S. I agree... states should not be able to make any vaccine mandatory with the exception of an extremely deadly epidemic.
At December 12, 2007 10:07 AM , Anonymous said...

NO!
At December 12, 2007 2:30 PM , Melissa said...

Thank you Dr. Bob for standing up for parent's right to fully or selectively vaccinate their children. Unless the state has reviewed each and every facet of that child's personal and family medical history as well as lifestyle, the ones who should be making these choices are the parents in conjunction with their knowledgeable physician. It is frightening to think that a bureacrat can act the part of a doctor, putting that child at risk by insisting on vaccinations that are better delayed or denied, and then separating the parent from their child by imprisonment. This type of oversight is extremely frightening to parents who desperately wish to keep their child in good health by either delaying vaccinations or choosing not to vaccinate. Ironically, by forcing vaccinations at the wrong time on the wrong child works against the public health by creating just another sick child.

Melissa
At January 27, 2008 7:56 PM , concerned_mom said...

After much research I have chosen not to immunize my 13-month old son. After reading from many different sources, it seems that the risks far outweigh the benefits.
I was surprised to find that many individuals who voted to mandate some of the vaccines stood to benefit monetarily from the pharm. co. that manufacters them. This is a huge conflict of interest!! I do not feel there should be a "one size fits all" mentality when it comes to vaccinating our children. As a nurse, I am infuriated that I have the obligation to be an advocate for my patients, but I can't even be an advocate for my son. What ever happened to informed consent??? The government wants to mandate these vaccines, but the parents are the ones left to raise the autistic, cerebal palsey, ADHD (the list goes on and on). ..child . Is it a coincidence that NJ who mandates the highest # of vaccines also has the highest rate of autism? (1 in 90). The statistics are out there, the government just stands to lose too much $ if they are acknowledged.
At March 6, 2008 4:43 PM , Anonymous said...

Absolutely NOT! I would like to know how they got away with this because it is not a LAW it is a requirement for school.

A state prosecutor involved in bringing potential criminal charges
against hundreds of parents in a county just outside Washington D.C.
for failing to allow their children to be vaccinated admitted yesterday on
a national radio show that there is no law that mandates any vaccine,
despite a Fox News report falsely claiming otherwise.

Remember - besides certain laws that apply only to government
medical specialists - there is no law that enforces the mandatory
use of any vaccine in the United States. Enforced medical treatment
is an assault and a violation of the 14th amendment. You do have a
right to say no.
At April 3, 2008 1:50 PM , Anonymous said...

Wilbert H.Mason, M.D.comments.....
As a pediatric infectious disease physician I feel I must comment on statements made in your March 27th commentary on the New York Times article. First, you infer that the cases in San Diego did not constitute an outbreak ("...if you can call it that..."). This is a highly contagious infection that spreads by small droplets that remain suspended in a closed room for over an hour. Indeed, 4 of the cases acquired the infection just by being in the pediatrician�s office at the same time as the first case. Three of these were infants and one of them had to be admitted to the hospital for dehydration.

Elsewhere you have observed that �all of the cases of measles passed without complications, as is usually the case with measles�. Let me share with you our experience with measles at Childrens Hospital Los Angeles during the measles epidemic in 1990. We diagnosed 440 cases between January 1st and June 30th. Of these cases 195 (44%) had to be admitted for one or more complications of measles. We documented the complications in all 440 cases and they included 63% with ear infections, 45% with diarrhea, 39% with dehydration, 36% with pneumonia, 19% with croup, and about 3% with other bacterial infections. Three children died all of pneumonia. Measles is not a trivial infection as you inferred. We would not be having a debate about vaccines at all if people realized the tremendous costs in suffering and human life we incurred before vaccines became available. To adequately protect a population against measles >90% of the population must be effectively immunized against the disease. If individuals defer vaccines as you suggest we will rapidly fall below that level putting large numbers of infants and children at risk of an outbreak if measles is introduced into the community. This is a free country but we should all feel some responsibility to our fellow citizens and their children.
At April 3, 2008 2:23 PM , Anonymous said...

Dr Sears, I am disappointed in your comments, which are certain to bring the veneer of a medical or scientific alternative to the current national vaccine recommendations, but which have little scientific validation. You suggest "a safe way to vaccinate that minimizes the risks of autism and other vaccine reactions", with your "Alternative Vaccine Schedule". You and I both know that you have conducted no peer-reviewed evaluation of this claim. You stated in 2006, "Giving parents some flexibility with the immunization schedule is a much preferable option to children not getting vaccinated at all". I agree with this statement. I have also made similar modifications, but have never encouraged them. You say, "The only downside for parents is the extra driving and extra co-pays." This is not true. While you are one of the beneficiaries of the 'extra co-pays', you leave the child unvaccinated for months or years, with a continuing risk from these preventable diseases, diseases that have a substantial risk of cancer, brain damage and / or death. By spreading out the vaccines, you increase the unprotected time for your patient, decrease protection against spread in our community, and increase the number of shots and episodes of pain (and potentially the number of local reactions or infections). The 'chemicals' are not lessened, just spread out. No science shows this is less risky. Missed vaccine opportunities lead to undervaccination and more illness in the community. At best, your alternative schedule is a last resort for families whose fear keeps them from getting their child the protection they deserve. I agree with you that pediatricians should take the extra time to educate parent about the risks and benefits of vaccines, and offer their patients a structured program of early developmental screening for development and autism, including use of measures such as the MCHAT or PDDST in the first two years of life. This is much more valuable than to offer an 'alternative vaccine schedule' escape hatch from well-functioning and scientifically grounded vaccination schedules. Marc Lerner, pediatrician and parent of a fully-vaccinated autistic daughter.
At August 4, 2008 8:01 PM , grand prairie said...

Of course, no other man or woman should be able to tell another how to live their lives. How can one man rule over another or select a leader for him without his express consent How many people have even asked themselves by what mechanism state power exists in the first place? It is all established and upheld by violence and perpetuated by deceit. Nothing good can come of it because the ends will always match the means.
At October 29, 2008 8:08 PM , Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for this little piece. I believe that whatever happens disease-wise, Americans should ALWAYS have the right to deny or accept vaccines. We do not vaccinate at all currently (which I know you don't agree with), and I would never let a government force me into that decision. I'm so thankful that I live in a country that, currently, gives us that choice. I feel that is part of being in a free country.
At October 29, 2008 9:34 PM , Anonymous said...

For the most part, I am against government mandated vaccines. However, with the rising concerns about vaccines causing autism (though no studies for or against), many parents are choosing not to vaccinate and there is has been an increase in the Measles, Mumps, and Pertussis (S/P?) (no reference). What do you think about that given the fact that many people in the past died from these such illnesses?