Tweet This
Vermont has picked health over fear. On Thursday, May 28, Governor Peter Shumlin signed a bill removing the so-called “philosophical exemption.” As of July 1, 2016 Vermont children will no longer be put at risk of contracting preventible diseases because of parental choice.
As often happens when reason confronts fear, the fear gets louder and more entrenched. So, it should be no surprise that the debate in Vermont turned rancorous and nasty. But the Governor, who previously disagreed with the removal, came around and did so gently. There was no public signing where victors might gloat. Instead, he issued the following announcement:
“Vaccines work and parents should get their kids vaccinated. I know there are strong feelings on both sides of this issue. I wish the legislation passed three years ago had worked to sufficiently increase vaccination rates. However we’re not where we need to be to protect our kids from dangerous diseases, and I hope this legislation will have the effect of increasing vaccination rates.”
The failed three-year old legislation he referred to attempted to raise vaccination rates by requiring parents to review the following educational materials: “Required Parent Education for Completion of the Religious or Philosophical Exemption Form in Vermont.” It’s kind of a dry, not very persuasive document. But Vermont did try in other ways. Their Dept. of Health has an excellent web-site, “It’s Ok to Ask,” with lots of easily accessible information.
What this teaches is that education in basic science cannot overcome all the irrational fear fomented by the anti-vaccine movement. For some, being an anti-vaxer is a quasi-religious belief system impervious to data and reason. It becomes an identity, one worth fighting for. And, unfortunately, lots of good people get caught in the irrational slipstream created by the orthodox anti-vaxers.
There is another dimension to this rancorous debate that has nothing to do with science and health. It is the question of parental rights. Michael Specter, writing in the the NewYorker, cites Representative Warren Kitzmiller, of Montpelier:
“There is something deep in the core of my being. And it simply will not allow me to vote to remove a parent’s right to make this serious decision on what is in the best interest of their child.”
Specter goes on to call this “a reasonable position.” Before leaving this topic, after two previous posts, I’d like to suggest it is not. It is not a reasonable position. A "parental right" not to vaccinate is the rhetoric of freedom and choice gone mad. Choosing to not vaccinate an otherwise healthy child is no more a reasonable exercise of parental rights than it is for a parent to decide that it is in the best interests of their child to never have them use a car seat or seatbelt.
Also on Forbes:
