Should The Federal Government Remove The Power Of The States Mandate Vaccinations For Children?

Mandatory vaccinations have been hotly debated in the United States for over two centuries, making the argument almost as old as the country itself. As early as 1809, Massachusetts became the first state to mandate the world’s premiere vaccine. Authorities recognized the life-saving benefits of the smallpox vaccine. They chose to require inoculation to protect the community from further outbreaks. Public outrage ensued as some community members feared the new vaccine and believed they should be able to choose if they wished to receive it. The most vocal protestors formed anti-compulsory vaccination groups and were successful in getting laws overturned in many states. However, even the United States Supreme Court has upheld states’ rights to require immunization. (A) Vaccinations should be

Imagine to the toll it would take on a family who can’t make the decision on whether or not they should immunize their children. One case involving a woman named Lori Matheson of Walled Lake, refused to vaccine her two-year-old daughter, citing health concerns and religious objections. Michael Schmitt, Matheson’s Ex-husband, took her to court over the matter. She asked the court to delay any ruling until she had the chance to follow through with genetic testing on the little girl, to see if she was prone to any vaccine related injuries. Matheson and Schmitt had disputed for months over the issue, before finalizing on the decision to take the issue to court. A 40-year-old Kansas resident and his wife fell into a terrible ongoing conflict when he wanted to vaccine their three-year-old daughter, and she did not. He debated going behind her back and getting their daughter vaccined, and dealing with the consequences later. Shortly after they had to put matters into official’s hands. There are many cases involving parents who follow through with a

While supporting the voluntary immunization for children and defending the right to have information regarding the risk involved with vaccines, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) oppose the elimination of or possible barriers of entry to obtain Non-Medical Exemptions. In an effort to reduce vaccine related injuries and/or death and support those who do not want to receive vaccines due to personal, spiritual, or religious beliefs, the NVIC supports the right to Non-Medical Exemptions. The primary purpose of this paper is to analyze the safety, efficacy, and economic burden of vaccines, as well as the right to choice in regards to Non-Medical Exemptions.

Is our society’s strict adherence to religious freedoms costing the lives of innocent children? The Christian Science Church rely on the Establishment Clause and The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as granting themselves and their children exemption from medical intervention. But because of their insistence in relying solely on prayer for the healing their sick children, approximately one child a month in the U.S. is known to die from an illness that would have been curable had they had medical attention. 1 Religious liberties of parents might protect their beliefs, but it should not protect their conduct of denying the rights of a child to his or her life.

In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) that states could “compel vaccination for the common good.” Historically, the safeguarding of the public health has been the chief responsibility of state and local governments. The authority to enact laws applicable to the safety of the public health originates from the state 's general police powers. With regard to communicable disease outbreaks, these powers may encompass the enactment of compulsory inoculation laws. Although present-day U.S. policies typically oblige children receive vaccinations before entering school, many states permit exemptions due to religious, personal, philosophical or health reasons. Still there is also Federal jurisdiction over public health issues as well.

In the United States, the law states that vaccinations are required for children entering school unless they have a valid reason that prevents them from receiving the vaccinations. Starting when children are born, they begin the regimen of vaccinations that continue throughout their adolescent years and adulthood. Each year children receive a variation of shots to protect them from the illnesses they will encounter in the world, especially once they attend school. The most common reasons parents forego getting their children vaccinated are religious beliefs, medical exemptions, and personal beliefs. Due to the rising number of parents declining to get their children vaccinated, the number of outbreaks of preventable diseases has increased. The question is now should parents/guardians be forced to vaccinate their children?

This is not to say that the conflict between the anti-vaccine movement (once again more of a set of ideologies) and the state mandated vaccinations did not cease. The 1922 case of Zucht v. King saw the expansion of compulsory vaccination to schoolchildren attending public school (a distinction that would come to the fore later in the 20th century (Colgrove & Bayer, 2005). Even as education took the front seat, public health still held the tools of quarantine

Prior to discussing if Pennsylvania should rule in favor of the Yoders’ suit and overturn the law that requires all children to be vaccinated for Hepatitis B before the age of five; one must first examine the Free Exercise of Religion contained in the First Amendment. The First and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment; “[C}ongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

Ever since the invention of the first smallpox vaccine by Edward Jenner (In 1788, the scientist Edward Jenner inoculated a healthy, 8-year-old boy with cowpox, a disease caused by a virus that closely resembles variola, this eventually led to the development of the smallpox vaccine), there has been much controversy since then over the morality, ethics, effectiveness, and safety of vaccination and immunization. It has recently been argued whether laws should be introduced that render some or all vaccines obligatory for all school-age children (Singer, 2009). Parents, physicians, school nurses, teachers and children all have an important voice in this issue. Parents rightfully argue that it is they who should have the ultimate decision-making

Further justification for mandatory vaccinations is logically discerned by reading John Stuart Mill’s and Arthur Okun’s views on rights. In On Liberty, Mill articulates that the only form of acceptable coercion is through the “harm principle” or “other regarding.” This translates as no one can or should want to harm their neighbor; therefore, society can willingly accept vaccination to protect others (Colgrove 2006, 4). Opponents argue that “harm principle” is not applicable because the only direct consequence is the side effects and harm a person receives from the vaccination (Colgrove 2006, 4), not the indirect effects such as a susceptible person obtaining the disease from lack of herd immunity. In response, I would argue, it is impossible to comprehend all the consequences our actions. Therefore, the government’s role is to prevent citizens from creating externalities that potentially hurt our neighbors.

Should Children Be Vaccinated? Social media is polarizing mistaken childhood illnesses believed to be caused by vaccinating children. This is causing parents not to vaccinate their healthy children for fear that they will become infected with some unknown disease. Because of this, vaccine-preventable illnesses are beginning to make a resurgence in the U.S. This was seen in the outbreak of measles originating at Disneyland in California. With parents taking advice from social media and celebrities about protecting their children from deadly diseases that were once thought to be eliminated in the U.S. is now reemerging. However, parents should be required by law to vaccinate their children.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the problem that will be addressed with my proposed solution. It will describe the history and overview of the issue both medically and publicly as well as the current status of public and political opinion. Three problems will be identified in the course of this paper as well as support to show the true application of these problems. Finally a solution is proposed and discussed after a summarization of the problems.

Caplan, Hoke, Diamond, & Karshenboyem (2012) examine whether it is legal to hold non-vaccinators responsible for any negative effects caused to another by not vaccinating. Caplan et al. (2012) describes a hypothetical scenario of a child’s death from contracting the mumps from an unvaccinated child. Caplan et al. (2012) conclude that parents can be held liable when a death occurs as a result of parents who chose not to vaccinate their child. In particular they discusses a stance New York state holds that it will charge a parent with neglect if a measles outbreak occurs and a child is not vaccinated. According to Caplan et al. (2012), the stance that New York state has taken demonstrates that the courts are willing to pursue more than just

Should children’s health be at risk for the greater good of community health? The news today is full of tragic stories about complications of vaccine use and there have been injuries from the beginning of vaccine use due to incomplete data on the side effects. The injuries have also brought about changes in the way vaccines are manufactured. The Georgia State Government requires citizens to receive vaccines in order to attend day care, go to school, and work at certain jobs and each state has its own mandates as well. The only way to get around the vaccine is to claim religious or medical exception. For either of these exceptions, one has to have a notarized affidavit for religious exception or a

To fully understand the argument for mandated vaccinations, it is important to understand how different States define the word, “mandate,” and the Supreme Court’s reasoning behind upholding vaccination laws. Many would associate the word “mandate” with an order or command, or something that signifies requirement or inexcusableness, but States’