Vaccination Considerations

Parents’ Refusal to Innoculate Puts Other Kids at Risk

Sunday, April 13, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

When is it ever ethical to a make a medical decision for your child that may endanger other children?

Most of us would answer NEVER.

This is an ethical no brainer. Right?


Every day, tens of thousands of parents across the United States make decisions that most medical experts believe could not only put their children at risk but other children as well.

These parents refuse to have their children vaccinated against dangerous childhood diseases such as diphtheria, rubella, mumps, measles, influenza, whooping cough, and many more. The medical evidence is overwhelming that when an unvaccinated child who is ill comes in contact with vaccinated children, the vaccinated children can be infected. The doctor or nurse who gives the vaccination can tell you, vaccines are not 100 percent effective; they are effective 85-95 percent of the time.

Ben Bycel

Parents who oppose vaccinations fall into two general groups. First, a growing number of parents believe that vaccinations, in general, are far more dangerous to their child’s health than the diseases they are to prevent. It’s not an ethical decision for them; it’s a medical one. And, yes, a small percentage of children become ill and even die from vaccinations each year.

One outspoken advocate of the non-vaccination position is attorney Alan G. Phillips, who claims to be the leading “U.S. vaccine-rights attorney.” Philips’s website is filled with information for parents. He writes:

Childhood infectious disease decline … in the 20th century is widely but erroneously attributed to vaccines. On average, about 90 percent of infectious disease decline preceded vaccine …. In fact some disease rates actually increased following the introduction of vaccines.

Another group of parents who oppose vaccinations on medical grounds focuses on vaccinations as the cause of autism in their children. They cite studies, reports, and articles that support their theory. The vast majority of scientific studies have, however, concluded that there is no credible evidence that any one vaccine or any combination of vaccines causes or triggers any manifestations of autism.

Another theory about vaccinations is that when the majority of a population has received an innoculation, a “herd immunity” helps shield the unvaccinated from the disease. Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children might take a small measure of comfort from this idea, but it also places them in the morally dubious space of benefiting from other parents taking a risk they are not willing to take themselves. Also, herd immunity only works as long as the herd stays vaccinated. If the notion leads to a larger proportion of the population refusing innoculation, we’re back to everyone getting terribly sick.

The vaccine debate is placed in a stark light when you think of the current tuberculosis outbreak in Santa Maria. While TB is not a disease against which people in the U.S. are actively innoculated, the drug-resistant strain infecting a number of the patients in Santa Maria begs the question.

Other parents oppose their children’s vaccination because of religious, ethical, or personal philosophical beliefs. They argue that whether or not to vaccinate a child should be a decision made by the parents, not the school or the government. About 20 states, including California, provide exemptions for such personal beliefs, as well as religious beliefs.

California law for opting out of vaccinations for personal philosophical grounds, however, changed on January 1, 2014. Now, a parent wanting to stop school vaccinations for a minor must have a medical professional (MD, DO, naturopathic doctor, and most nurses) sign a statement that states the medical professional “provided information” to the parent or guardian of the minor about the benefits of immunizations.

On the same form, parents must check a box stating that either they received the information or check the box that states they are members of a religious group that does not allow them to seek such medical advice. The parent must present this form to the school.

Some who have followed this change think that having parents listen to a medical professional explain the dangers of forgoing vaccinations will reduce the number of parents who, on philosophical or medical grounds, refuse to have their children vaccinated.

Others who are watching the new law think it will have little or no effect on how many parents refuse to have their children vaccinated on philosophical or medical grounds.

Regardless of what a parent’s religious or personal beliefs are, I think it is ethically and morally wrong to allow children who are not immunized to attend school with children who have been vaccinated against the multitude of childhood diseases. I am concerned about the unvaccinated children of course, but the law generally sides with parents’ exclusive rights to make decisions for their own children.

But why should others be allowed to make decisions that affect your children?

Where do you come down on this important issue?


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Vaccines and other pharmaceuticals hyped by the medical establishment produce more deaths than traffic fatalities.

According to the New England Journal of Medicine, up to 80% of the transnational corporations producing these products are criminal organizations [ ], and have been repeatedly found guilty of felony crimes, most related to suppressing safety information.

Government health departments and medical establishments operate as these transnational corporations’ marketing departments, ignoring sound medical science in order to aggressively promote often useless but dangerous products.

The top ten transnational pharmaceutical corporations extract from U.S. citizens annual profits of $35.9 billion, more than the profits for ALL the remaining 490 Fortune 500 companies. So there's an enormous amount of funds available to "educate" and influence public health departments and medical establishments.

In a foreword to the book, 'Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare,' entitled, 'Is the pharmaceutical industry like the mafia?' [ ], published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Richard Smith, former BMJ editor, demonstrates that the transnational pharmaceutical industry has "incentivized" doctors, academics, journals, professional and patient organizations, university departments, journalists, regulators, and politicians.

'Corporate Research Project' criminal rap sheets:


Eli Lilly




JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2014 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Doctors are only human, science has not come far enough to eradicate serious medical errors that have happened to good friends of mine. Yes you might have a good doctor, but the rest of us might not. "Incentivized" is only part of it. What happens when your child is that .01% that gets his childhood taken away for more medical mishaps, wheelchairs, and more chemical needles due to 1 vaccine? I know these people. BTW, flu shots are bunch of bull too from what I have seen.

spacey (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2014 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My personal experience: within days of our son receiving a DPT vaccine, he bumped his head (unrelated) and then went catatonic, rigid, almost like a petit mal seizure. The seizure-like incidents happened at least six times thereafter, always preceded by some sort of physical shock. They went away by the time he was two but it's hard for a parent to see their kid turn rigid, eyes roll back in his head, etc.

I don't know if the seizures were related to the DPT vaccine or not, but it did prompt us to look for alternative ways to protect him (and his younger brother) from diseases by the least risky options, and to lessen our reliance on vaccines.

wallymoon (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2014 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am not convinced the benefits of vaccinating outweigh the risks. Are you a parent yourself? What is acceptable risk when it comes to your children? Is the risk of death, disability, mood disorders worth the benefit of a chance of protection against a disease that isn't usually fatal (Measles, flu). Most of us know the study on autism and vaccines was flawed. What about people's very real concerns about the additives and adjuncts used in vaccines? Are we to trust a for profit corporation that formaldehyde and other substances are safe to inject into our children. Do we really understand the effect these substances are having on developing immune systems.

Why do many health care providers (myself included) choose to either not vaccinate or selectively vaccinate their own children? It's not because we are uniformed or ignorant of the consequences. Are we to turn a blind eye to the enormous amount of anecdotal evidence of the negative side effects of the current regime of recommended vaccinations?

At the end of the day both sides are going to say they are being forced into situations that could harm their children, making this an extremely volatile topic. As a parent I feel it is absolutely prudent to look beyond the information being provided to me by those who stand to make a profit off of my decision. I am fairly certain that when others do this they will at the very least have reason to question the safety and effectiveness of current vaccination recommendations.

billd (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2014 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I look at this from the Legal stand point. The parents are responsible for their children, Right? Then by the same token, they would be held accountable for the sickness their child spreads to other peoples children; if those parents Opt out to have their children Immunized Program. I am not saying that the child is responsible directly but that the parents are directly endangering the rest of the Tribe/Community by taking the holier than thou approach by not Immunizing their child and running the risk of infecting everyone else...

dou4now (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2014 at 6:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Then from that same point of view anyone with a negative impact from the vaccine could sue those who are trying to compel others to get vaccinated thru the threat of legal action.

Plus, if your kid is vaccinated and you're so sure they work what are you worried about.

billd (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2014 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

At what number does a tribe become a horde or swarm? With today's population, I think tribe could only account for very small towns.

spacey (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2014 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

get all the standard vaccinations, try to reduce redundant or useless ones, get on with the students' education.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 17, 2014 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Considering the fact that some vaccines are not particularly effective and have never been tested for safety if you follow the standard of placebo vs vaccine - all vaccines are tested against another vaccine - should we exercise caution when it comes to childhood illnesses which can actually boost the TH1 immune system. Vaccine induced immunity activates the TH2 immunity which is associated with auto immune disease.

Rise in mumps cases linked to waning immunity given by MMR
Public health officials are warning of a rise in cases of mumps due in part to waning immunity to the disease in those given the MMR vaccine…

Has Mercks Measles/Mumps MMR vaccine become ineffective ...
Has Mercks Measles/Mumps MMR vaccine become ineffective, or have new strains emerged?

Ineffective Vaccine Tied to Boston Measles Outbreak : NPR
Boston is entering the third month of ameasles outbreak. Officials say a major factor is that many Americans received an ineffective vaccine

The Statesman: Anti-measles vaccine ineffective ?
With the outbreak of measles in Ganjam district, doubts are now being raised on the purity and efficacy of the anti-measles vaccines

Waning population immunity to measles in Taiwan
1. Introduction. Mass immunization with the measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccine has been incorporated into routine childhood vaccination …

Judylucy (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 3 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't get upset about this. I don't let the pro-vaccine people get under my skin.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2014 at 4:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Personal to Wallymoon.
Google "breath holding syndrome" Yes, it is alarming, yes, the child grows out of it. I think that perhaps it comes on at the time of childhood vaccinations is because the vaccinations come at the same time as your toddler is more likely to encounter the sharp pains of falls etc. You can mostly protect an infant from such pain.
Our diagnosis came after extensive neurological testing. (It was before Google)

Mumtaaz (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2014 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What the author is proposing here is very dangerous.

I have no problem with those who promote vaccines using their free speech to convince everybody as to their safety and efficacy. But that isn't what the author is doing. The author is insinuating that those who don't get vaccinated are endangering other children, and what he doesn't say next, but you have to read between the lines to understand is that means everybody should be forced to get vaccinated otherwise you could endanger or injure somebody else.

Forcing everybody to get vaccinated is very dangerous. There is no way to actually know what is being injected into your body, so we have to trust our doctors - which is one thing - but beyond that we have to trust the vaccine manufacturers. Then we have to trust all of the scientific organizations who studied that vaccine. There is a lot of money in vaccines. You also have the potential to have nefarious people place nefarious substances into the vaccines.

The bottom line is that forced vaccinations are antithetical to liberty.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2014 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Reading between the lines is basically imagining what isn't there (but you secretly wish were there, if only to spicen up another dull day at the office.)

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2014 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken, often times what is in between the lines IS STILL THERE.

"Regardless of what a parent’s religious or personal beliefs are, I think it is ethically and morally wrong to allow children who are not immunized to attend school with children who have been vaccinated against the multitude of childhood diseases. I am concerned about the unvaccinated children of course, but the law generally sides with parents’ exclusive rights to make decisions for their own children.

But why should others be allowed to make decisions that affect your children?"


loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2014 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: