To Vaccinate or Not to Vaccinate
4 June 2015
Last week, an e-mail popped into our in box calling for voters in California and Vermont to campaign against state laws that will limit the allowable
exemptions from mandatory vaccinations. Sent by an
organizations called Citizens for Health, the appeal cites
“bodily integrity and personal and domestic sovereignty”,
alluding to some vague potential loss of liberty and
founding constitutional principles.
Notably absent from this appeal is any mention of the responsibilities that necessarily accompany freedom. What Citizens for Health considers “the essence of American liberty” – the right to refuse an immunization – inherently includes the ability to pose risk to others. Refusing a vaccination places you at risk for contracting the particular disease. Once infected, you become a vector for transmission. You are now a danger to infants, transplant recipients, cancer patients, those living with HIV/AIDS, the elderly, and others with weakened or compromised immune systems. While you may have the right to place yourself at risk, that right does not extend to posing danger to others.
There is a powerful meme on Facebook that asks “Remember that time you got polio? Of course not, because your parents had you vaccinated.” There is no arguing with that sentiment. The statistics speak for themselves. The absence of smallpox in our world is a result of what Citizens for Health term “forced medical treatments.” Perhaps equally troubling is that this freedom from illness is enjoyed because herd immunity is gained via widespread immunization. Those demanding the right to refuse vaccination rely on others to provide this protection. There is something perversely shortsighted and selfish in this. Guaranteeing others the basic liberty we enjoy is an essential aspect of our freedom. Concentrated self-interest is not.