Hillary Clinton didn’t achieve her dream of becoming America’s first female president. But she obviously got her message across to the state of New Jersey since it has wholeheartedly taken hold of her liberal (and specious) view that “it takes a village to raise a child.”
New Jersey is the first government in the world to mandate that children (ranging from six months to five years) get a flu shot before they can attend pre-schools and day-care centres. And why stop there? As of September 2008, New Jersey parents have until Dec. 31 to also ensure their children receive a pneumococcal vaccine (for pre-school children), the meningitis vaccine (for sixth graders) and a booster shot for diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.
Sure, Jersey has a reputation as being a home to gangsters and shady deals. But who knew diphtheria was a catastrophic threat?
The state’s Health Department says the heavy-handed approach is necessary because young children are “particularly efficient” in transmitting disease (no disagreement from me) and New Jersey is vulnerable to disease because of its high population density, a mobile population and a large number of recent immigrants.
But the villagers aren’t taking too kindly to this dictate. Parents are furious and there is a rush to support a bill that would allow conscientious objections to mandatory vaccines. State policy currently allows for objections based on medical reasons and religious views, but that fact isn’t promoted. As such, requests are minimal, difficult to register and mostly refused.
Some parents (the minority) cite safety reasons. Thimerosal (a mercury-based preservative in vaccines) has been a controversial issue surrounding vaccines for a long time. Many believe it to be the culprit responsible for autism, attention deficit disorder and a host of other neurological symptoms. A number of medical studies dispute this theory and some vaccines have eliminated the product altogether, but public questions persist.
The flu vaccine received more bad press this week when a 44-year-old Vancouver man went public with his story of developing Guillain-Barre syndrome after his flu shot last year. The syndrome can result from vaccines, and he said that doctors diagnosed it immediately when he arrived at the ER with neurological symptoms and told them he had been ill since his flu shot. He was paralyzed for five months; even now, he continues to have severe medical problems and is unable to work.
But risks accompany any medication or medical procedure. The key point here is that a free society allows individuals to make the decision about accepting those risks—or not. Similarly, parents of underage children have an ethical obligation to preserve their physical and mental well-being, and the legal right to make any medical decisions. As I’ve previously written, it must be presumed that the parent is right—unless the state can prove otherwise.
This is the biggest concern about mandatory flu vaccines—it takes away the parents’ right to make medical decisions for their children and, as the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons has written, is akin to “the state practicing medicine without a license.”
Every individual responds differently to medication and vaccines, and that includes negative reactions. The idea of mandatory vaccines ignores that concern and forges ahead in the mistaken belief that this one medication/vaccine will be a positive benefit to all. This deliberately sacrifices individual health to public health, because what is best for the population isn’t always the best for the individual.
If the state is under an obligation to respect the right to informed consent for treating sick people, why would we allow it to bypass that right to inject medication (that can have side effects) into those who are not sick as a means of protecting the rest of the population? It is particularly repugnant when that group includes babies and young children—those who are absolutely dependent on loving parents to make decisions that are in their best interests.
The New Jersey governor has tried to stem debate on this issue by saying he doesn’t “want to speak to the specifics.” With all due respect to the governor, the specifics are exactly what should count when making a medical decision on behalf of a child—and this is why government cannot possibly make a better decision than the child’s own parents.
I’m not saying that people or children should/should not get the flu vaccine. I intend to and have for many years. But I am saying that when the village is in charge, the parents aren’t. And that is not in the best interests of any child.
- Defender to defendant - Saturday January 29, 2011 at 9:16 am
- Grief or glamour? - Saturday January 22, 2011 at 8:24 am
- Forget blame game - Saturday January 15, 2011 at 7:48 am
