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."
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."
He was obviously speaking off the cuff. One can't expect a sitting governor to have given any prior thought to controversial public health issues that have been in the news for fricking ever.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
I draw the line when a TV show your child is forced to watch can infect and kill my child who cannot watch the show.
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.
The exact same arguments could be used against hitting your children. Some parents would say it's good for them - they need to learn not to act up and it builds character, if they are allowed to go without proper punishment they'll grow up to be spoiled brats. However, the government makes the decision that it's unhealthy to beat up your children, and makes it illegal, if you do it your kids will be taken away by CPS and you may go to jail.
Can they tell parents what to feed them?
No, but the government does tell you that you do have to feed your kids. If you don't CPS will take them away and you may be charged with neglect.
So you see...the slippery slope argument is complete logical fallacy. The government already has lines. With EVERYTHING. Like, once you allow interracial and homosexual marriage, what's next? People having sex in the street in front of children? Don't allow people to drive drunk? What's next?
I wonder if Gov. Christie could name some of the diseases he thinks we vaccinate for unnecessarily? What are these innocuous infections the government is forcing parents to prevent?
What valid health concerns are those?
The only concern of any kind I've ever seen raised is autism, which is based on a report that failed to show a causal link, had too small a sample size, and was thoroughly debunked by peer review. It is not a valid concern.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I wonder how quickly allergies to vaccination would miraculously improve, and religious objections to vaccines magically evaporate, if there were a "liability" section on your health insurance.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
It's funny you mention a rabid animal...
We now live in a country where if I choose not to get my dog vaccinated against rabies, not only am I fined, but am legally responsible for the medical care costs of anyone my dog infects.
But if I choose not to vaccinate my child and they get someone else sick, then it's OK, because it was my *choice*.
The inescapable conclusion in my mind is that we care more for the welfare of our dog population than we do our human one.
The Demagoguery over this issue is breath taking.
If you recall, Rick Perry mandated HPV vaccinations in 2007.
Lots of people totally lost their shit over this despite the fact that HPV can cause cancer and the vaccine is effective and not just because of donations. The term parental choice was thrown around a lot.
Many people in the news on their high horse about Christie 's comments are the same ones who were shitting bricks about Perry''s mandate. Hell, even Obama was on the fence about vaccinations in 2008.
So file all this under Complete and Utter Presidential Race Bullshit.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Good health and hygiene is much more effective than any vaccine.
And we can all avoid cancer, transplants, AIDS, etc that compromise our immune systems. Also the recent outbreaks have occurred in areas where the incidence of non-vaccination has been high but hygiene has been good.
Remove the vermin which spread disease
Vermin do not spread measles, mumps or rubella.
teach people to wash their hands.
Which has no effect what so ever on the viruses in the air we breathe.
It was those practices which lead to the decline of infectious disease.
Possibly a decline but vaccines lead to a much larger decline.
not some government voodoo.
Would that be the "vodoo" that eliminated certain diseases from some countries?
The immunisation program has been quite successful. Cuba declared the disease eliminated in the 1990s, and in 2004 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that both the congenital and acquired forms of rubella had been eliminated from the United States.
We still get immunized because the disease can be imported from other countries.
Interesting study. I fall into both categories. One doctor tells me I'm allergic, another tells me I'm not.
I don't have a potentially lethal reaction to it.
In fact in history I have not had a reaction to all forms of it.
However if I swallow a penicillin tablet I will end up with severe and violent vomiting. Now I ask you, is it relevant or not if I am not considered allergic because I don't have the correct response to the drug if I can't take it due to extreme vomiting?
I had this discussion with my doctor. He suggested I take it anyway. I suggested what is the point of a drug if almost the entire dose will end up flushed down the toilet and leave me sore and dehydrated?
I put down penicillin allergy on all my paperwork.
So are you suggesting there is no line?
Should the state stay uninvolved if a parent sexually interferes with their child, or does that interference not count as drawing a line? How about allowing the beating of children badly enough to break bones when they misbehave, or does saying they can't do that not count as drawing a line? Refusing to feed their children must be ok by your logic, otherwise it'd be the state telling parents what to feed their children which you explicitly use as an example of bad state interference.
The issue with vaccinations and freedom is that it isn't about what is best for that individual child, it is about what is best for society and children as a whole. I'm fine with parents having the choice not to vaccinate their children, as long as schools/scout groups/theme parks/sports stadiums etc can all require proof of vaccination or a medical exemption, and that public venues that allow un-vaccinated children in and don't warn people about that can be sued for the damage caused.
Yeah, anecdotal data. Every parent I've met who claimed their little angel was allergic or sensitive to something had never actually had any tests done to verify that. So I'll presume a self-diagnosis to be wrong, until proven otherwise.
Learn to love Alaska
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that something very strange happening with allergies. I've just hit 30 and when I was a kid nut allergies were virtually unheard of, nothing was done by society to control the risks, nut free food plants didn't exist (or were at best vanishingly rare). Now ~20 years later nut warning information is everywhere, nut free plants are common, schools and other institutes have policies and processes in place, airlines have nut allergy policies etc.
Either nut allergies are a lot more common, or its become a lot more common to think you have an allergy.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that something very strange happening with allergies. I've just hit 30 and when I was a kid nut allergies were virtually unheard of, nothing was done by society to control the risks, nut free food plants didn't exist (or were at best vanishingly rare). Now ~20 years later nut warning information is everywhere, nut free plants are common, schools and other institutes have policies and processes in place, airlines have nut allergy policies etc.
Either nut allergies are a lot more common, or its become a lot more common to think you have an allergy.
The latter, I think... but I really have no idea, so I make no claims...
What I WILL say is that I think this is turning back the other way... My kid's private school has reintroduced peanut butter, a totally forbidden food up until this school year. They sent letters home letting parents know and that for any kids who really do have an allergy, precautions would be taken, but since peanut butter is high in protein and a generally healthy food, it was considered a good way to bring more nutrition back into school.
I wrote the school back a letter and thanked them for doing so and being brave enough to take it on. Several other parents did as well.
But we all pay taxes to have a public education system, and that system has to accommodate all sorts of kids, including those from parents who don't want to vaccinate their kids.
No that system doesn't have to accommodate them.
Un-vaccinated kids that can be vaccinated but the parents refuse are a public safety hazard for kids who cannot be vaccinated due to allergies.
maybe a bad analogy: But do you want to send your kid to a school where one kid is carrying a loaded handgun, all the other kids have kevlar protection and your kid due to allergies cannot wear the kevlar.
That's because the phrase "draw the line" should NEVER be used in a scientific discussion.
It is exactly how science NEVER works.
Because the universe does NOT - ever - draw lines.
There is a difference between unavoidable risk and reckless endangerment and there is absolutely NO scientific doubt that failure to vaccinate your children recklessly endangers not only them but all other children as well.
Even those who ARE vaccinated because vaccines aren't 100% effective. But if everybody has them - and you have the one kid who would get pertussis despite the vaccine the odds of that kid being exposed to it is near zero.
If a lot of people are NOT vaccinated, that kid is all but guaranteed to get exposed.
It's reckless endangerment through and through. There is no way it should be legal.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
That's a very libertarian approach - never be preventative, only punish when something inevitably goes wrong.
The trouble with that approach is, that in the real world, proving guilt is very nearly impossible.
If there are 5 unvaccinated kids in school and all five get sick - how do you win a case against any of their parents - each can say beyond a reasonable doubt that it could have been one of the others.
They are all guilty, and you can't prove it for any of them. That's exactly where preventative behaviour regulation IS justified.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *