or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Filing a Religious Exemption Ethically
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Filing a Religious Exemption Ethically - Page 3

post #41 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Yeah, that was kind of my point.  

 

A lot of NVers like to emphasize that you can't compare anything to vaccines because they are an INVASIVE procedure, but it doesn't really have much to do with the invasiveness of it. 

Agreed.  It has to do with prophylactic drug use on healthy children ;)

 

I find it interesting that involuntary quarantine only applies to very dangerous disease in outbreaks, yet exclusion from school is in place (unless you have an exemption) for even mild diseases in non-outbreaks.  While I get involuntary quarantine and exclusion from school are not the same, I  would argue they are on the  same trajectory.  It is nutty, IMHO.

 

"Under the procedures required by the PHS Act, the list of diseases for which quarantine is authorized must first be specified in an Executive Order of the President, on recommendation of the HHS Secretary. Since 1983, this list has included cholera, diphtheria, infectious tuberculosis, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, and viral hemorrhagic fevers. It was amended in April 2003 to include SARS."

http://www.cdc.gov/sars/quarantine/qa-isolation.html

post #42 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

That the diseases it is supposed to protect against are sexually transmitted.  Not spread through casual contact like measles,rubella, polio, mumps etc.  

 

I'd also throw in there that there isn't any official recommendation for universal circumcision of boys to protect public health in the US. 

So, then, can we count on your support if they try and make HPV vaccine mandatory in school?  HPV is sexually transmitted.

 

I am not sure "official recommendations" apply unless you are arguing that people should, de facto, comply with official recommendations….which is the opposite of informed consent. 

post #43 of 70

She already stated she did not support school requirements for HPV vax.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

FWIW, I don't agree with requiring vaccines for STDs (gardasil) for school.   
post #44 of 70

People are free to refuse "informed consent".  Part of the information is that public schools may be more difficult to access.

post #45 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

People are free to refuse "informed consent".  

I am not sure what your point is.  Please clarify.

 

Yes, in general people can waive their right to informed consent.  But, in my mind, you start with the right…which includes the right to decline a procedure.   

post #46 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

So, then, can we count on your support if they try and make HPV vaccine mandatory in school?  HPV is sexually transmitted.

 

I am not sure "official recommendations" apply unless you are arguing that people should, de facto, comply with official recommendations….which is the opposite of informed consent. 

I remember reading posts on removing "certain" exemptions (helping out those parents! yea-right!) and also those pesky non-legitmate medical ones!  :bgbounce

post #47 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

I am not sure what your point is.  Please clarify.

 

Yes, in general people can waive their right to informed consent.  But, in my mind, you start with the right…which includes the right to decline a procedure.   


People are free to refuse to consent to -- or decline -- vaccines.  Nobody has argued otherwise.

post #48 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 


People are free to refuse to consent to -- or decline -- vaccines.  Nobody has argued otherwise.

 

Well, I would say that if you are in a position where you find yourself lying to send your children to school….you probably aren't as "free" as you should be.

 

free

  [free]  Show IPA
adjective, fre·er, fre·est.
1.
enjoying personal rights or libertyas a person who is not inslavery: a land of free people.
2.
pertaining to or reserved for those who enjoy personal liberty:They were thankful to be living on free soil.
3.
existing under, characterized by, or possessing civil andpolitical liberties that are, as a rule, constitutionally guaranteedby representative governmentthe free nations of the world.
4.
enjoying political autonomyas a people or country not underforeign rule; independent.
5.
exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc.,as a person or one's willthought, choice, action, etc.;independent; unrestricted.

 

post #49 of 70

And I disagree that making hard choices is an infringement upon freedom.

post #50 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

And I disagree that making hard choices is an infringement upon freedom.

What if the school said your child had to be circ'ed to attend?  Would it be an imposition on your freedom to have to Homeschool him or circ him?

 

If you do not like that example - how about the one I gave earlier:  All children have to be on prophylactic antibiotics to attend school.  Is it an infringement on your freedom to say he your child needs to be on prophylactic antibiotics to attend school? 


Edited by kathymuggle - 2/24/14 at 12:40pm
post #51 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

And I disagree that making hard choices is an infringement upon freedom.

I'm going to speculate that you & I would disagree strongly on the definition of freedom.

 

Sus

post #52 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

And I disagree that making hard choices is an infringement upon freedom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mama24-7 View Post
 

I'm going to speculate that you & I would disagree strongly on the definition of freedom.

 

Sus

Just because I was curious, I looked the definition of freedom up at dictionary.com:

 

free·dom

  [free-duhm]  Show IPA
noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won hisfreedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external controlinterference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.
5.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

 

I think #2 & #3 applies here.  How is one free if they have to complete a process to chose *not to have* something?  If the person was free, wouldn't the person who *is* choosing the something have to complete the process?  How am I free if there is regulation around what my children can/can not do because of their vaccination status?  HOw am I free if my actions are restrained?  Isn't an exemption a form of restraint?

 

I already know the answers.

 

Sus

post #53 of 70
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

What do you guys think about this response? 



 



"First, states could adopt a narrow religious exemption that requires a show of sincerity and enforce it strictly, following New York’s example.  There are two other problems with this approach. First, policing sincerity is very, very close to policing religious beliefs. The reason courts put obstacles on policing religious  beliefs is because courts are uncomfortable – correctly, in my view – to allow state officials to play conscience police. It’s not the state’s business whether your beliefs deserve protection, whether they are good enough to count as religious beliefs. 



 



Second, states could only offer medical exemptions. This is supported by Skeptical Raptor, and also, for example, by Dr. Paul Offit. This would have the advantage of protecting the largest number of children and reducing the rate of exemptions. This is, however, a very strong intrusion into parental rights. It will also force parents who truly believe vaccines are toxic to either somehow present a false medical exemption or homeschool. This may negatively affect the career prospect of such parents and their income, not necessarily a good thing for the children. It may also deprive the children from public schooling. 



 



Or third, states could get rid of religious exemptions and offer only a personal choice exemption. The risk, of course, is that this will lead to high rates of exemptions, with children left vulnerable to disease and potentially a risk of outbreak. One way to handle that is by making personal choice exemptions hard to get – by imposing educational requirements (as proposed by Professor Ross Silverman and implemented by several states, including Oregon, Washington and California), and requiring an annual renewal. But a personal belief exemption would still probably lead to more exemptions than a medical exemption only situation. 



My personal tendency is towards option 3. But I admit I am still conflicted and unsure about that." 



 



Guess who wrote this a week ago? Dorit Reiss.  Yes, this was written by the evil pharma shill Dorit Reiss, on skeptical raptor's blog as a guest post.  



 



http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/religious-exemptions-vaccination-abuse-reform/


 



Thanks for clarifying her position.

I realize that you cannot speak for her, but I wonder where she gets the idea that Bad Mommy Laws are effective, especially with yearly renewal.

It isn't fair to cite the Washington State example, ("It MUST be working. The exemption rate went down to 4.2%!"), because correlation doesn't equal cause.

I'd like to see some real, rigorous evidence that these "informed consent" laws truly do fulfill their intention of converting the heathens, i.e. that state-mandated videos and exam room lectures convince non-compliant parents to move to full vaccine compliance.

I actually once saw research indicating just the opposite, and I'm kicking myself for not saving the link. I'll grant that the sample size was small, but it's the most evidence that we have on the issue. A group of "vaccine-hesitant" parents in Canada, (Toronto, I think???), watched a video trying to convince them to comply with vaccine orders, and it only further alienated them and reinforced their decision to decline vaccines. If anyone can dig that study up, you'll get a big cyber-smooch. blowkiss.gif

And what's with the annual renewal part? Is Dorit hoping that rehashing this issue 12 months later will inspire the non-compliant to see the Light? Or are these red tape hurdles just supposed to serve as an implicit punishment for non-compliance?
Edited by Turquesa - 2/24/14 at 8:56pm
post #54 of 70
Thread Starter 
NM. Off-topic.
Edited by Turquesa - 2/25/14 at 9:22pm
post #55 of 70
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

And I disagree that making hard choices is an infringement upon freedom.


 



Here's a great quote from NVIC's Facebook page. This comes in response to a proposed "informed consent" law in CO:

"When your freedom requires you to ask permission from the government to exercise it or to be indoctrinated with biased information from the government intended to change your behavior, you are not free. I am sick and tried of the Nanny State that is Colorado. Colorado Health Care Workers and citizens, if you are willing to help fight a bad bill that has been introduced in Colorado, HB 1288, please send me an email - clovelandnvic@aol.com"

Whenever there's a proposal for "informed consent," everyone wants to get their sticky hands on and control the "information." Aren't vaccine politics fun? The state grants you a right and then turns around and tries to intimidate you out of exercising it.
post #56 of 70
Thread Starter 
Back to the religious exemption question, should people HAVE to belong to an official, organized religion in order for their beliefs to count as valid and sincere?
post #57 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
 
 

 

Thanks for clarifying her position.

I realize that you cannot speak for her, but I wonder where she gets the idea that Bad Mommy Laws are effective, especially with yearly renewal.

It isn't fair to cite the Washington State example, ("It MUST be working. The exemption rate went down to 4.2%!"), because correlation doesn't equal cause.

 

So, I did a little digging…because everything I know about conscientious objectors tells me they are unlikely to change their mind after watching one video.

 

So, Washington's exemption rate went from 6% ish to 4.2 after the "talk to your provider" rule.  The question is why?  Did doctors actually talk a decent number of objectors (close to a third) into vaccinating?  It seems unlikely.

 

This commenter from this article  http://www.inlander.com/spokane/vaccine-haters/Content?oid=2135174   said this:

 

1. "Paperwork" exemptions. Fully 1/3 or more of the exemptions (2% of the 6%) are vaccinating families who simply don´t have their documentation in order at the time of school enrollment. Sympathetic school staff are incorrectly providing exemption forms to permit the children to attend school, when they should be using a "non-compliance" form. WA Health Secretary Mary Selecky recently described this phenomenon on OPB Talk Out Loud radio program.
http://www.opb.org/thinkoutloud/shows/immunization-boosters/"

 

The article also talks about how many parents have exemptions on file but the only vaccine they lacked was chicken pox.  None-the-less, exemptions laws are such that they are often a package deal.  If your only objection is chicken pox and it is not a firm objection, then it is possible you could give your child this one vax to be compliant.  

 

So…I am not sure that we should come to premature conclusions on how drops or rises (for that matter)  in exemption rate  relate to vaccination rates.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 2/25/14 at 10:39am
post #58 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Back to the religious exemption question, should people HAVE to belong to an official, organized religion in order for their beliefs to count as valid and sincere?

 

No. That's absurd. Who decides if your religion is "religious" enough? What about my Catholic friends who oppose all vaccinations based on the Bible yet the Vatican is alright, hence the authorities will rule they aren't sincere enough? This is an extremely slippery slope and wrong on so many levels.... 1984.

post #59 of 70
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the info, Kathy. That was my hypothesis, that WA's new law simply "caught" those parents who avoided vaxxing out of conveience. I'm sure many of them arrived at the exam room and said, "You may as well vaccinate them. I'mnalready here, anyway."

Proponents of this law may argue that this scenario is a good thing...that if the new law reaches these families and raises the compliance rate, they've done their job. In that case, however, they need to stop being disingenuous with all of their righteous rhetoric about "informed consent."

Coloradoans, I hope you're lurking....
post #60 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by nia82 View Post
 

 

No. That's absurd. Who decides if your religion is "religious" enough? What about my Catholic friends who oppose all vaccinations based on the Bible yet the Vatican is alright, hence the authorities will rule they aren't sincere enough? This is an extremely slippery slope and wrong on so many levels.... 1984.

I wouldn't say 1984, this type of thing has been tried through out history, "religious enough" - yea, what has history done to those who dare go against the religious norms? plenty! I see this no different, they same types that throughout history have gone after others are/plan to do so with this extremist logic.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Filing a Religious Exemption Ethically