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."

40 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 DrGamez · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. Re:Backpedalled? by kogut · · Score: 5, Informative

      How can an unvaccinated kid infect and kill your child if your child was vaccinated?

      No vaccine is 100% effective. So "herd immunity" still marginally benefits the vaccinated.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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."
    11. 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.
    12. 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."
    13. 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.

    14. Re:Backpedalled? by mjwx · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      No vaccine is 100% effective. Even vaccinated kids can contract a disease they've been vaccinated against. The risk is much lower (vaccines are over 99.9% effective) but its still a risk. In the recent measles outbreak at Disney that had 95 confirmed cases, at least 6 were confirmed to be vaccinated against measles.

      This is one reason I'm glad that in my country, Australia, an MMR vaccination (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) is mandatory unless you have a damn good reason not to get one (and being an idiot isn't good enough).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    15. Re:Backpedalled? by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      And one more: Not everyone who is vaccinated actually becomes immune. Vaccines are highly effective, but they're not 100%.

      There are lots of reasons that herd immunity is really important.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.

    18. Re: Backpedalled? by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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
    19. Re: Backpedalled? by compro01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      A couple of studies presented last year at the annual meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology suggest that the vast majority (361 out of 384 in one study, and 38 out of 38 in a second) of people who think they're allergic to penicillin aren't actually allergic to it.

      Granted, both are small samples and it's hardly a look at allergies in general, but it does raise questions about the actual incidence of allergies.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    20. 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.

    21. Re: Backpedalled? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    22. 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.

    23. Re:Backpedalled? by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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 *
    24. 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 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. But Rand Paul says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Rand Paul says vaccines cause mental illnesses! I guess that explains libertarianism.

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

      Nixon is a liberal by today's standards.

  4. In defense of Gov Christie by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  5. Re:Citation needed. by Squiddie · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics... I searched your italicized quote there. First result.

  6. Re:Only if they pay for infections this causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Vaccinations do not prevent you from being infected; They significantly reduce the likelihood of you being infected from any given exposure to the disease. If everyone is vaccinated this results in the disease dying back due to the infection rate being too low to sustain the disease, meaning everyone is less likely to be exposed. However, if there are many who are not vaccinated the dieback doesn't happen because there are enough easily-infected people around to keep the disease alive. Even though you might be vaccinated and more resistant to infection than if you weren't, if you come into contact with infected people over and over you stand a chance of being infected yourself.

  7. Re:HPV by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Informative

    Uhhh, HPV is the cause of huge numbers of deaths each year. A quick google reveals that cervical cancer rates are 2.3 per 100,000 women per year, aka 3500 deaths a year in the US alone. HPV is the root cause of over 90% of those cancers.

  8. Thank you. Looks like Reye's Syndrome... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Informative

    I searched your italicized quote there. First result.

    Thank you.

    It looks like he's talking about Reye's Syndrome, a pathology that can cause substantial brain damage (and/or other things: Liver damage, death, ...) in children - adults generally recover fully after a couple weeks. (I wanted to be sure he hadn't signed on to the immunization/autism claims, which have been thoroughly discredited.)

    Reye/Reye's is a reasonably rare side effect of several viral illnesses, including immunizations for them. Risk of it seems to be multiplied by a factor of something like five if aspirin is taken, but aspirin (or other salicylates) is not necessary for its occurrence. It seems also to be associated with pre-existing metabolic disorders, so some families might be at very high risk while others effectively immune.

    It's clear from even the soundbite posted: Rand's claim is that the decision to risk a child's health is properly the parents', and the government should not be able to force the child's exposure to a series of these risks over the parents' objections - informed or otherwise.

    Immunizations are partly about population immunity - reducing the density of people susceptible to a disease to the point that it peters out in a declining exponential rather than blowing up in an expanding exponential, thus also protecting those not (yet) immunized, for whom the immunization was ineffective, or who were at risk despite the availability of immunization (e.g. AIDS sufferers). So risk/benefit calculations are for populations as well. Accepting the risk of the immunization helps others as well as the immunized person, so being immunized is partly an altruistic act.

    Rand's point is that he believes the government shouldn't have the power to FORCE people to risk their lives for the benefit of others, that these life-critical decisions are personal and should be left up to the people in question (or their guardians if they're too young to make the choice themselves).

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Rabid by Rollgunner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  13. Demagoguery by sycodon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  14. 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.