Philosophy vs. Science in New York Vaccine Debate

In the United States, the number of parents not vaccinating their children has grown in recent years. As a wide array of information on the impact of vaccines is published, more parents grow skeptical about the benefits of vaccines, particularly on the topic of whether vaccines cause certain illnesses, such as autism. Regardless of scientific evidence refuting the claim that vaccinations cause autism, parents are still fearful of vaccinating their children. This fear and skepticism of vaccinations has led to a public health debate about the rights of parents to determine whether to vaccinate their children, as well as state legislation on vaccinations to protect the health of its citizens.

A recent article by Natalie Escobar in the Brooklyn Law Review delves into the public policy and legalities of mandating vaccinations in the context of a phenomena known as “leaving the herd” and its impact in New York State and New York City. Ultimately, the article argues that New York law ought to include an exemption with safeguards to ensure that parents with sincere beliefs against certain vaccines can abstain from them. In this context, the herd refers to immunized members of the population, and those who do not immunize receive the benefit of living within a population that is safe from a disease.

The herd effect incentivizes individuals to not become vaccinated as “the risk of disease lowers.” This incentive exists because individuals and parents believe there is little to no threat of becoming ill themselves, or of their children becoming ill, because the majority of the population is vaccinated. This becomes a problem once more and more of the population chooses to not become immunized, as herd immunity will be destroyed, and an outbreak of disease will occur. The balance between parents’ rights, individual rights, and the right of the public to live in a disease free society is the foundation of the debate around this problem.

Today, all 50 states have exemptions to mandatory vaccinations for medical reasons, such as an allergy to ingredients in a vaccine. Most states have exemptions for religious reasons, and a few states have exemptions for philosophical reasons. As there are no federal laws on the matter of compulsory immunizations, the responsibility has been largely left to the states. The Supreme Court has supported the states’ rights to enact compulsory vaccinations for school children on the grounds that each state has an interest in protecting against health threats to their communities. This is substantiated by the argument that, since the use of vaccinations is only way to achieve that interest, there are few alternatives to vaccinations other than isolating an unvaccinated person from the community.

Escobar cites the extremely diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds of New York City to reflect the dynamic set of beliefs that do not traditionally fall into commonly held religious beliefs. More parents and individuals fall on a spectrum of beliefs that are beyond the Christian and non-Christian religious label. Individual beliefs have advanced beyond the traditional sense of organized religion to which the courts commonly refer in these types of cases.

Today’s parents and citizens are more likely to have blended beliefs that encompass traditional religious doctrine as well as homeopathic beliefs. It is in this instance that states such as New York need to reevaluate the criteria to allow a philosophical exemption for vaccinations to be flexible in defining philosophical beliefs—and not be too stringent in defining beliefs on the basis of how genuine or sincere they are. It is already difficult for the courts to define religious beliefs and even more difficult to define philosophical beliefs due to the blended nature of, and lack of, foundational evidence—such as the Bible— for beliefs.

One of the consequences of granting philosophical exemptions to vaccinations would be possible abuse of the exemption by parents who choose not to vaccinate out of convenience, rather than for any religious or philosophical belief. Currently, there is a complex schedule of vaccinations for children, and this may deter parents from vaccinations.

Given the publicity of the benefits and costs of vaccines from spokespeople and celebrities, more parents are wary of vaccinating their children, regardless of the impact that their unimmunized child has on the greater population. Escobar recommends that parents be more educated on the medical benefits and potential consequences of not immunizing to combat the negative side effects of an increase in flexibility in granting philosophical exemptions. Ultimately, New York state law needs to include an exemption for those who hold sincere beliefs against vaccinations, beliefs that do not fall into the traditional context of how beliefs are constructed in the increasingly blended cultures of religion, race, and ethnicity.

 

Article Source: Escobar, Natalie “Leaving the Herd: Rethinking New York’s Approach to Compulsory Vaccination”, Brooklyn Law Review, September 1st, 2014.

Feature Photo: cc/(Erik)