Slashdot Mirror


New Jersey Gov. Christie: Parents Should Have Choice In Vaccinations

kwyjibo87 writes: New Jersey Governor and self-appointed public health expert Chris Christie weighed in on the public debate over whether or not parents should have a choice in vaccinating their children, telling reporters in the U.K., "I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that's the balance that the government has to decide." He added, "Not every vaccine is created equal and not every disease type is as great a public health threat as others." These statements from Gov. Christie follow President Obama commenting in an interview with NBC: "There is every reason to get vaccinated — there aren't reasons to not."

Gov. Christie quickly backpedaled on his "vaccine choice" comments, with the Governor's office stating, "The Governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection and with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated," but amending: "At the same time different states require different degrees of vaccination, which is why he was calling for balance in which ones government should mandate."

42 of 740 comments (clear)

  1. Backpedalled? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what happens when you get extreme partisanship - the other side's knee-jerk reaction to anything is to oppose it. Kind of like a rabid animal will bite anything.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Backpedalled? by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I think it has more to do with the state telling parents what shots their kids must receive.
      Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all about vaccinations and feel that anti-vaxers are idiots, but I'm a little leery of government making health decisions for my kids. If the government can tell your kids what vaccinations they must receive, what's next? Can they tell parents what to feed them? Can the government mandate what TV shows kids are allowed to or must watch? Can government force kids to read certain books or attend certain functions? Where do you draw the line? Once you draw that line, why can't it be crossed or moved?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:Backpedalled? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If vaccinations aren't mandatory for a fairly large proportion of the population, herd immunity is compromised and then not only do you get the poor children of anti-vaccine types getting diseases like measles, but those children who cannot, for health reasons, receive the vaccine, are put at substantial risk.

      I'm willing to compromise, however. Don't vaccinate your kids, and they are not allowed in a school, daycare, public park or anywhere else where they may come into contact with other children.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Backpedalled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some kids have legitimate health reasons for why they cannot receive vaccinations. Children who could be vaccinated but dont put those kids at a higher risk.

    4. Re:Backpedalled? by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You premise is flawed. Not everyone can get vaccinated, due to allergies, surgeries, and other conditions. This is why vaccinations are so important: to protect those who can't get them.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    5. Re:Backpedalled? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because not everyone can get vaccinated, for health reasons. For instance, a child that is too young to receive the vaccine can still contract, and die from, a disease like measles. Others have weakened immune systems, or medical allergies, that may make it difficult to immunize them. These people rely on herd immunity, where enough other people are immunized that the disease can't gain a foothold and spread. If one child in a classroom isn't vaccinated, they're not going to catch it from their classmates, but when 5 or even ten children in a classroom aren't vaccinated, the risk increases dramatically.

    6. Re:Backpedalled? by sabri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't vaccinate your kids, and they are not allowed in a school, daycare, public park or anywhere else where they may come into contact with other children who cannot be vaccinated due to medical reasons and rely on herd immunity for their safety, or infants who are to young to be vaccinated..

      Fixed it a little bit for you, but I agree with you so much. Choose not to vaccinate your kids and face the consequences: I don't want unvaccinated kids in my child's daycare, preschool or school. The government mandates that I take my child to school, and I have every right to expect that her safety is taken care of. That includes the threat of unvaccinated children.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    7. Re:Backpedalled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You aren't mandated to attend a public school. You can home school if you wish, and no, your taxes don't follow you, just as they don't only get applied to the streets you drive on.

    8. Re:Backpedalled? by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In addition to the other responses - every non-vaccinated person who contracts the disease increases the chance that said disease mutates into a form the vaccine can no longer protect against.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    9. Re: Backpedalled? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most of the parents claiming allergies are full of shit, the majority of these so-called allergies are in the parent's mind and not supported by a diagnosis from a legitimate unbiased medical professional.

      Not all, but certainly most of these people are full of it.

      It's almost like Christian Science.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    10. Re:Backpedalled? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can they tell parents what to feed them? Can the government mandate what TV shows kids are allowed to or must watch? Can government force kids to read certain books or attend certain functions? Where do you draw the line? Once you draw that line, why can't it be crossed or moved?

      You may not be aware of this, but that line has been drawn, and moved. The government does mandate you provide good nutrition for your kids. They can take your kids away and put them in foster homes.

      Things that were allowed a few decades ago are not allowed now. When I was eight, I rode all over the place on my bicycle. When I was in first grade, I walked to school by myself. Now you can't let them walk around the block. CPS can take your kids for giving them that kind of freedom, even though it's probably safer now than when I was a kid (crime rates are down).

      So yeah, the whole debate has moved on from whether government should be involved in raising kids, and now the only question is how much.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:Backpedalled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      RE: #1 Government mandates that children must attend school

      But, government does not mandate that it must be public school.
      There are private schools in every state.
      There are home schooling provisions in the laws of most states.
      In some states, home schools are chartered under the same laws as, or are otherwise considered equivalent to, a private school.
      There are also private tutors.
      The status of private tutors under the law as either a private school or a home school vary from state to state.

      RE: #2 Government mandates that all children who attend a school must meet certain health requirements.

      Private and home schools may or may not require vaccinations.
      Most states have no provisions under the law that make vaccination mandatory for private schools.
      Those states that do have such a provision for private schools only make it mandatory if the private school receives public funds or state accreditation.
      I know of no state that makes any mandatory vaccination demands on home schools.
      Even for public schools, alll states provide vaccination exemptions on medical grounds, most states provide exemptions on religious grounds, and some states even provide exemptions on non-religious philosophical grounds.
      There are also some public school districts and/or states as a whole that use rated vaccination schedules where they only make mandatory vaccines against high risk communicable diseases in the top tier of that schedule.

      RE: #3 If children do not meet those health requirements, See #1

      More like see the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
      Vaccination mandates only apply to attending public schools.
      If such a mandate conflicts with your religious beliefs or conscience, that is why you have private schooling, home schooling, and tutoring options.

      All of that being said, if your religious or philosophical beliefs allow it, as a parent, you should consider the risks an benefits of each an every vaccine separately. Weight any risk of harm you may potentially see in a particular vaccine against the harm the disease would cause if contracted.
      In almost all cases, the potential negative interactions of a particular vaccine are known.
      Also, consider that there are a large number of horrific diseases for which nearly any vaccine side-effect is preferable to the risk of contracting or spreading the disease.
      In short, do your homework and make the prudent judgement for each vaccination individually.
      You will find that, in manyt cases, getting yourself and your children the vaccination is justifiable on its face.

    12. Re: Backpedalled? by AchilleTalon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gluten allergies, for example. Only a very small fraction of all these people claiming they are allergic to gluten are really allergic to it. These days, if you don't have at least one allergy, you don't exist. So, I'm allergic to allergies.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    13. Re:Backpedalled? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not sure why you are being a dick. The guy asked a question and nothing more.

      Or are you upset over his concept of freedom and asking how far can the government intrude?

      Personally, i think kids not vaccinated for deadly or dehabilitating diseases should be bared from attending public schools. But i do not support the government forcing anyone to take any medication.

    14. Re:Backpedalled? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. If the consequences of the decision not to vaccinate ended with your child, I'd be supporting choice in vaccination. I'd still question the judgement of those who didn't vaccinate, but I'd fight for their right to make that choice. However, not vaccinating your child doesn't just mean your child can get sick. It means your child can pass vaccine-preventable diseases to other people who are too young to be vaccinated, can't due to valid medical reasons, or were vaccinated but whose vaccine didn't "take" (even if a vaccine is 99.9% effective, there will be a lot of people who get the shot but don't get immunity).

      When the anti-vax movement started, they were able to not vaccinate without major negative repercussions because (perhaps ironically), they were actually relying on herd immunity of the vaccinated. Now, though, we're getting large enough pockets of anti-vax that herd immunity is breaking down and we're getting vaccine-preventable disease outbreak.

      Choosing not to vaccinate means someone else's child might get sick and/or die. You might have many freedoms to choose how you raise your child, but your freedom to raise your child ends at another child's well being.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    15. Re:Backpedalled? by Bengie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not sending your children to school can land you in jail or have them taken from you for neglect. Why not vaccines.

    16. Re:Backpedalled? by jklovanc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You cannot eliminate all risk in life.

      True but you can control some of it. Vaccines and herd immunity have been shown time and time again to reduce the spread of certain diseases and save people's lives.

      Where are we gonna draw the line?

      Where a few small acts have been proven to save the child's and/or someone else's life.

      Some kids have legitimate health reasons why they can't survive cancer.

      Cancer is not a communicable disease and it has not been proven that throwing money at it will ever make it so.

      A lot of kids injure themselves tripping over their own shoelaces.

      Injury is not death. Another issue is that lack of safety equipment does not put other kids at risk of death.

      Vaccinations are a great thing, but this argument sticks in my craw.

      You whole argument seems to be about where to draw the line. Sure they are arbitrary but it is a decision based on science, the ability to do it and the impact it has on society. The only negative impact I can see to vaccination is taking away the ability of a parent to send an un-vaccinated child to school. That is a very small price to pay for herd immunity.

    17. Re:Backpedalled? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not sending your children to school can land you in jail or have them taken from you for neglect. Why not vaccines.

      Neither should...

      If you want to home school your children, that is a parent's right.

      As for vaccines, you REALLY don't want to get into the business of having the government forcible inject stuff into everyone. A very shallow study of history will tell you why that is a REALLY bad idea...

    18. Re: Backpedalled? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obama -- another self-appointed public health expert

      You are confised. Obama is not (and never claimed to be) a public health expert. But He would claim to be a spokesperson for his advisors who are certified public health experts.

    19. Re:Backpedalled? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not sure why you are being a dick. The guy asked a question and nothing more.

      It was a dumb question. The answer is easily found on the Internet. It also implies an anti-vaccine stance. If he (and you) are too dumb to recognize that, then he's worthy of the abuse for that alone.

    20. Re: Backpedalled? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1, Insightful

      more responsible and community spirited parents had their children vaccinated.

      Keep in mind that when you phrase it like that, you shut down all dialog...

      You're putting out there a statement that says that any parent who doesn't vaccinate is not responsible.

      There is no where to go with the conversation, you've already insulted the other side.

    21. Re:Backpedalled? by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You may have missed the AC the GP is responding to. The AC stated that more people die from the flue vaccine than from the flu. That's what (I presume) the source is being asked for.

      That's entirely possible and no reason to stop vaccinating. We could have an illness that kills 10,000 a year without vaccination. And with proper vaccination, we have 100 deaths per year from the illness, and 1,000 deaths a year from the vaccination. Deaths from vaccination outnumber deaths from the illness 10 to one, but still we should vaccinate.

    22. Re:Backpedalled? by Dan1701 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would contend that a person's freedom to be an idiot starts and ends with themselves, and does not extend to endangering the life of their child, or indeed the lives of other children damaged in an epidemic of a preventable disease.

      This is one of those cases where science and state really do know better than a Bronze Age religion. One of the many, many cases.

    23. Re: Backpedalled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, let's bring back crippling polio, and measles epidemics that killed thousands of people, all because your special snowflake should be able to carry infectious diseases if you want them to.

    24. Re:Backpedalled? by tehcyder · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Homeschool! (State monopoly on education would be vile.)

      Homeschooling is basically child abuse.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    25. Re:Backpedalled? by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact is, you do not want government getting into this... freedom to make your own choices and freedom of religion is FAR more important...

      Freedoms of choice, religion or anything else are only absolute in your own heart and head.

      Once you start to affect other people, your freedom gets limited. You are certainly not free to choose to murder someone without consequences.

      Something like vaccination is a simple utilitarian decision of a society that the good of the majority outweighs the freedom of a few. If you want to live in that society, you have to accept that decision, just like you have to agree not to murder your neighbour.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Oh God, not again by halivar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet again, we get a GOP primary debate circus solely around Tardisil and the merits of encephalitis over autism. Fuck this party, I'll go Liberta--what's that, Mr. Paul? Oh. You're one of them, too. Shit.

    1. Re:Oh God, not again by poity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's the quote with the context that was omitted by Salon and by the submitter

      “We vaccinate ours, and so, you know that’s the best expression I can give you of my opinion. You know it’s much more important what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official. And that’s what we do. But I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that’s the balance that the government has to decide.”

      So it seems it's not so much an issue of scientific illiteracy as it is one of political hedging and cowardice.
      That the media chose to run with the former as its narrative is revealing, both of the political allegiances of those media outlets and of Christie's complete naivete.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    2. Re:Oh God, not again by spongman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      actually, the small-l libertarian view is more nuanced. refusal to vaccinate your kids can easily be seen as an act of negligent violence against others (me).

      do libertarians believe that you shouldn't be forced to correct your eyesight before being granted a license to drive? vaccinations can be considered a similar public-health measure affording you the right to enter public spaces.

      stay in Galt's gulch if you want, but if you have the measles, keep the fuck away from me and my kids.

    3. Re:Oh God, not again by silfen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      actually, the small-l libertarian view is more nuanced. refusal to vaccinate your kids can easily be seen as an act of negligent violence against others (me).

      Libertarianism (or classical liberalism) doesn't recognize "negligent violence". You're simply playing word games in an attempt to justify positive rights.

      do libertarians believe that you shouldn't be forced to correct your eyesight before being granted a license to drive?

      I think whether I drive on a road and what the conditions are under which I do so should be a voluntary agreement between the road owner and myself. Right now, it is not, since I am forced to pay for the roads and then forced to comply with often arbitrary and corrupt rules for using them. You may think that that's the only way of having roads, but it clearly isn't if you look at history.

      stay in Galt's gulch if you want, but if you have the measles, keep the fuck away from me and my kids

      I think that's a perfectly fine attitude to have, and in fact I am vaccinated. But you may be forced for your kids to associate with unvaccinated kids because you are forced to pay for public school, your school choices are limited both by money and by location, and public schools have to cater to religious objections. So now you are fighting with religious nuts over which vaccinations should be mandatory. If schools were privatized, private schools would have no problem imposing vaccine requirements, and you could send your kids to schools that require measles vaccines. Religious nuts could send their kids to schools for religious nuts and get wiped out by a measles epidemic.

      The problems you are having aren't with libertarianism, they are with lack of libertarianism.

  3. Well, he has a point. by sackvillian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Not every vaccine is created equal and not every disease type is as great a public health threat as others... I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things"

    I, for one, proudly agree with the wise governor that some vaccines shouldn't mandatory for children. Like the shingles vaccine -- expensive and marginally effective, and practically useless if you're under the age of 60. I don't know why'd I'd ask my parents to decide on this vaccine call for me when I hit the age of 60 but his point is valid.

    But god, I hope he's not referring to Mumps, Measels, Rubella, and the like!

    --
    Hey mate, spare a sig?
  4. Choice but with consequences by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Chris Christie weighed in on the public debate over whether or not parents should have a choice in vaccinating their children, telling reporters in the U.K., "I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that's the balance that the government has to decide."

    If parents are allowed to choose then that choice should not be without consequences. If these parents decide to not vaccinate their children for diseases like measles for any reason other than a documented medical condition that makes vaccination inadvisable for that specific individual, then those children should not be allowed to attend public school and those parents should be legally liable for that choice. If the child gets the disease then the parents should risk going to jail for child endangerment if there is an unfortunate medical outcome. They have the choice but that choice should not be consequence free because it isn't. They are taking a gamble that their child and those others who cannot get vaccinated will avoid the illness and if that gamble comes up snake-eyes then punishment should follow.

    These statements from Gov. Christie follow President Obama commenting in an interview with NBC: "There is every reason to get vaccinated — there aren't reasons to not."

    So Christie is endangering public health in order to pander to his political base. Make any decision about whether to vote for Christie an easy one for me.

    1. Re:Choice but with consequences by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The logic behind it was pretty simple. No company makes money on the vaccinations that are required (for the most part), and a few of those vaccinations are made/provided at a loss. Because there are only a few companies that make them, and because of the vaccines vital importance to society, they developed the program to compensate anyone who did have an adverse reaction in lieu of a handful of lawsuits driving those few companies out of business, thereby depriving society of a critical resource.

      I am very much against government shielding corporations from legal actions, or being used as the muscle behind (bought) laws that strong-arm citizens.... but in this case, this type of program was needed. The only two options would be to nationalize production of vaccinations, or to let all these diseases decimate the human species into eventual extinction.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    2. Re:Choice but with consequences by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have an idea.... lets hire a bunch of doctors to use science to figure all that out. We can name them something like The Center for Disease Control.

      Unless you are a doctor, or epidemiologist, what you're really saying is you want to argue that your uneducated opinion is as valid as centuries of medical knowledge. They have thought about the ramifications.. decades ago (and still do today). They've thought about what vaccines... decade ago (and still do today). The CDC isn't a drug company.. they don't make money by pushing drugs onto people; there job is to keep people alive, to prevent massive outbreaks, and to try to protect people from their own stupidity.

      Sadly, they've sorely underestimated the level of stupidity involved.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  5. Why so eager to give the pharma lobby our kids? by jrhooker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, there are some things that could be advantageous if they were mandatory, but as soon the lobby dollars get the legal right to force folks to inject their kids with stuff, do you think it will stop anywhere reasonable? If so, you've got a lot more faith in the basic humanity of pharma execs than I do. We can justify anything in the name of enhancing shareholder value.

    1. Re:Why so eager to give the pharma lobby our kids? by Shados · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And yet another reason the US will go to hell (faster than other first world countries). Pretty much all governments are corrupt by definition, but among first world countries, the US beats records. Because of that people don't trust it things a government should be doing, like making sure people are forced to get the important vaccines. And thus they don't get the benefits and fall behind..

      The way humans are going, sooner or later all countries have that issue...but the ones that do later are at a net advantage.

  6. Re:But Rand Paul says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nixon is a liberal by today's standards.

  7. Re:Only if they pay for infections this causes by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about someone else who can't receive the vaccine? The whole point of herd immunity is to protect those who, for health reasons, cannot receive a vaccination. Once that herd immunity is compromised, it's not just the children of evil, repugnant, vile, despicable, moronic parents who deny decades of medical science that can be harmed, but the children of decent rational parents whose children have immunological conditions that prevent them from being immunized.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Re:Citation needed. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obviously! Kids dying of disease is all just a natural part of robust biological competition. Allowing the weak and mentally defective to live, on the other hand, inevitably results in some tax-and-spend bleeding heart coming along and demanding to expropriate the wealth creators in order to provide 'humane treatment' to such parasites.

    Really, since parents own their children, they should just be allowed to abandon them in the wilderness to die(as long as they aren't trespassing on somebody else's property, or supporting the socialist national parks by doing so) if they suspect that kiddo's ROI isn't favorable. They shouldn't be allowed to abort them, of course; but postnatal headcount reduction is how freedom works.

  10. Re:Only if they pay for infections this causes by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But that is part of the problem... really stupid people who think their ignorant, uneducated opinion is as valid as the accumulation of centuries of medical knowledge. You supposedly have a brain.. use it. Learn. Grow. Become a thinking person.

    If your car breaks down, you take it to a mechanic; if you travel by airplane, you have a pilot fly the plane; if you get sick, you go to a doctor... not a mechanic, or pilot.... and certainly not a blonde brain-dead ex Playboy playmate who's biggest claim to fame is taking off her cloths so a bunch of horny guys can jerk off to pictures of her.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  11. The most important vaccine by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No vaccine is 100% effective.

    That's very clearly the case. We used to have a really useful and highly effective vaccine that gave protection against the root cause of the problem we are discussing here: ignorance. The vaccine was education. Sadly as this has been watered down it has become less effective with the result that we now see increasing outbreaks of ignorance worldwide resulting in new symptoms such as intelligent design and not having your kids vaccinated as well as some old symptoms, like astrology, re-emerging.

    Sadly governments have not responded to this by once again strengthening the vaccine, education, that has protected us for so long. Instead they seem to prefer to treat each individual symptom of the disease by passing laws. This is simply not going to work: already new strains of ignorance, such as intelligent design, have proven remarkably resistant to this treatment and have started to attack the education vaccine directly weakening its effectiveness further.