LDS Religious Exemptions from Vaccination

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

An epidemic seems more than a little late to party to prevent illness and death.

I am all about preventing illness and death, I just don't believe that it should be done through compulsory means.  Do you really want the government to mandate preventative medicine?  There is an epidemic of childhood obesity, should we mandate that children stop drinking soda-pop and eating at McDonalds, etc.?  With heart disease as the number one killer in America, it makes sense, right?  Should we mandate that kids exercise 30 minutes everyday or block them from attending school, because healthy kids are much less likely to get sick and spread disease.  Why do we make such a big deal of these rare acute diseases like hep A and ignore the bigger problems?  Where do you draw the line? 

Not to mention, mandating that children stop drinking soda has no potentially life-threatening, deadly, or permanent disability causing reactions like vaccines have.  If I have to vote between mandating vaccinations or mandating no soda, I would vote for no soda every time.  Talk about cost saving!

[pogi]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Pogi,

What, exactly, is your position with respect to vaccination?  Are you concerned about the purported link between vaccination and autism (I think there's more than enough evidence that that alleged causal link is suspect, myself; I just want to know more about where you're coming from)?  Do you think that, generally, vaccinations are a good idea, but that government shouldn't mandate them?  As I say, it would help to know more about where you're coming from.

My position with vaccines is pretty well spelled out in that long response I responded to Calm with.  If you want specific information of my concerns about vaccines and why mandating them may be unethical, I posted an example of a risk vs risk analysis in regards to PCV13 vaccine on page 2. 

To give you an illustration of how I think all vaccines should be administered, let me share with you how we do the yellow fever vaccine in travel medicine.  We educate the patient about the estimated risk for disease at their destination (after a pre-travel assessment), and we discuss with them the risks associated with vaccination.  Sometimes we strongly encourage vaccination; in more gray areas, we explain the risks of both and let them decide without trying to influence them one way or the other, and in some cases where the risk of vaccination is obviously greater than the risks for disease, we simply advise them to use good mosquito precautions and avoid the risks associated with vaccination.  This is not just me that practices this way, that is how it is practiced throughout the industry.  This is how I believe it should be practiced across the board with all vaccines. It needs to be the patients choice after being educated about the risks of both disease and vaccine, without coercion.

There seems to be a real double standard that children are mandated to be vaccinated, but international travelers (who are way more dangerous in terms of infectious disease) have no such mandate.  It was an international traveler from the Philippines who was responsible for the measles outbreak in Disney land.

As far as autism goes, I agree that there is not enough evidence to link it to vaccines.  However, I have heard of new studies being done to look for a link between vaccines and the more rare regressive autism.

Edited November 18, 2016 by pogi

[pogi]

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 2:24 PM, Calm said:

It seems to me that probably everyone posting on the thread probably agrees there are times when the risks of a vaccine are higher than the risks of the disease (obvious example was the trial vaccine that killed off my friend's first grade class eons ago).

What is debated is where to draw the line.  I assume everyone agrees this should be different for each vaccine version and its accompanying disease (for example the line would be very different for the old polio vaccine of my friend's experience and the current one, though the disease is the same).

This kind of stuff is obvious, but not specifying can waste a lot of time.

A possible side debate is who is best to make that decision.  Currently in the US parents usually have the right if I understand the law correctly, though a decision not to may restrict a child's opportunities.  Considering that in my experience, parents rarely have sufficient information to make complicated medical decisions based on stats and often are not willing to be either educated or listen to criticism no matter what position they hold once a decision has been made, I am not certain that parents should have the final say.  Even if kids are homeschooled, there are infinite possibilities where they will be exposed to other kids without the other children's parents knowing the risk...such as on the playground, shopping in toy stores, libraries where books are shared by total strangers (hopefully most bugs don't last long enough for this to be significant), movie theaters, restaurants, etc.. Thus parents' decisions don't just affect their kid as say deciding whether to have a cavity filled or not does.

Getting back to your post...

As to who should decide, this article does a good job of describing the ethic of who should participate in decision making in regard to medical interventions.  It addresses all of your concerns pretty well.  By applying a government mandate, it introduces a coercive element that violates the medical ethic of informed consent.  It absolutely is an ethical violation.

http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/consent.html

You bring up a concern about unvaccinated children spreading disease - with a near zero percent risk of becoming infected for almost all of these diseases, the chances of an unvaccinated child infecting a vaccinated child (who has up to 99% protection in some cases), is very slim.  It can and does happen with less effective vaccines, but when the disease is so rare and because the disease is more mild in vaccinated children, the risks of vaccination can be much greater than the risk for disease.  Again, it is important to acknowledge that there ARE risks from vaccination, but for some reason people only think about the risks of disease.  I think you should seriously consider and be concerned for the victims of vaccination a well.  Their stories are tragic!  Also, there is no evidence that vaccination rates would drop significantly if we removed mandates.  I am not arguing to do away with vaccines.   

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by pogi

[pogi]

One last stick-it-to ya'll for the night

I guarantee you that a large percentage of the people reprimanding me for my position have not been vaccinated for hep a, hep b, and probably have only had 1 dose of MMR in their life if they were born before 1989.  There is a good chance that you have not had the shingles vaccine (over 60) or pneumococcal vaccine (if you are over 65), and in my experience, a large percentage of the population is not up to date with their tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis shots.  Guess what, you are putting us all at risk you "selfish" "immoral" people!  Should we mandate that you all get vaccinated or keep you out of the public sector?  Why the double standard? 

Edited November 18, 2016 by pogi

[Yirgacheffe]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Also, there is no evidence that vaccination rates would drop significantly if we removed mandates

There is no evidence that they wouldn't drop either.  It surprised me to learn how many children play catch-up at school when it comes to vaccines.

[pogi]

10 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

There is no evidence that they wouldn't drop either.  It surprised me to learn how many children play catch-up at school when it comes to vaccines.

Actually there is evidence. 

It is interesting to note that the highest rate of vaccination is in Maine (which allows for all types of exemptions) with an 84.7% vaccination rate.  On the other hand, West Virginia has the nations lowest vaccination rate at 63.4%.  West Virginia only allows for medical exemptions which are impossible to get without a rare medical contraindication.  I will post a link that shows the vaccination rates of each state which you can compare to the map below.  You will notice that more strict mandates do not necessarily correlate with higher vaccination rates, and less strict mandates (where anybody can opt out who wants to) does not necessarily correlate with lower vaccination rates.  The white states below only allow for medical exemptions.

http://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/2015-annual-report/measure/Immunize/state/ALL 

Edited November 19, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Any given individual has a small chance of dying in an automobile accident. Yet all are required by law to have them.

[strappinglad]

25 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Any given individual has a small chance of dying in an automobile accident. Yet all are required by law to have them.

I assume you are talking seatbelts here. Seatbelts do much more that prevent dying. They can reduce death to serious injury and serious injury to minor injury and minor injury to no injury. It is the injuries that really cost the most to society. Now , of course, there are many stories of how seatbelts have actually caused more harm, and there are the stories of how years ago kids survived without being strapped in. Similar to vaccines I guess. Yet we mandate seatbelts and motorcycle helmets.

[thesometimesaint]

Yep. Fumble fingers strike again. My apologies. Exceptions really don't prove the rule. Small Pox killed many many millions, and injured more. But until relatively recently all had to get the vaccine. That God and Edward Jenner.

[pogi]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Any given individual has a small chance of dying in an automobile accident. Yet all are required by law to have them.

If you are comparing seat belts to vaccines and comparing car accidents to infectious disease - when seat belts start killing or seriously injuring more people than car accidents do, then maybe you have a fair comparison.  Not to mention the more mild side effects of vaccines that should be considered- do 1 in 4 people who buckle up get a low grade fever, etc?  Also, buckling up is not really considered an invasive medical procedure which requires informed consent, so...

Speaking of cars...if you guys are all about mandating public health, I have an incredible idea!  There were over 35 thousand deaths from car accidents in the US last year (not including serious injury).  That is way more dangerous and deadly than all the infectious diseases covered by vaccines combined!  Maybe we should mandate that people stop driving cars.  Given these statistics, anybody who drives a car is "selfish" and "immoral" because not only are you putting your child at risk, but you are putting me and my child at risk as well.  Not to mention the health benefits of improved air quality!

Edited November 20, 2016 by pogi

[Yirgacheffe]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

Actually there is evidence. 

It is interesting to note that the highest rate of vaccination is in Maine (which allows for all types of exemptions) with an 84.7% vaccination rate.  On the other hand, West Virginia has the nations lowest vaccination rate at 63.4%.  West Virginia only allows for medical exemptions which are impossible to get without a rare medical contraindication.  I will post a link that shows the vaccination rates of each state which you can compare to the map below.  You will notice that more strict mandates do not necessarily correlate with higher vaccination rates, and less strict mandates (where anybody can opt out who wants to) does not necessarily correlate with lower vaccination rates.  The white states below only allow for medical exemptions.

http://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/2015-annual-report/measure/Immunize/state/ALL 

Exemptions aren't mandates and I'm not convinced that other circumstances may have more of an affect than this.  But I would like to see the rates, especially if you are willing to bring the work here so it's easy to look at

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

If you are comparing seat belts to vaccines and comparing car accidents to infectious disease - when seat belts start killing or seriously injuring more people than car accidents do, then maybe you have a fair comparison.  Not to mention the more mild side effects of vaccines that should be considered- do 1 in 4 people who buckle up get a low grade fever, etc?  Also, buckling up is not really considered an invasive medical procedure which requires informed consent, so...

Speaking of cars...if you guys are all about mandating public health, I have an incredible idea!  There were over 35 thousand deaths from car accidents in the US last year (not including serious injury).  That is way more dangerous and deadly than all the infectious diseases covered by vaccines combined!  Maybe we should mandate that people stop driving cars.  Given these statistics, anybody who drives a car is "selfish" and "immoral" because not only are you putting your child at risk, but you are putting me and my child at risk as well.  Not to mention the health benefits of improved air quality!

Use of seat belts saves many more lives, and injures, than from not using them. So it is an apt comparison. Also driving on the public roads in the US isn't a right. It is privilege granted by the state. To bring the discussion back to immunizations. You don't have the right to infect other people. 

[pogi]

13 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Exemptions aren't mandates

Thats exactly my point.

13 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

But I would like to see the rates, especially if you are willing to bring the work here so it's easy to look at

If you are talking about the rates of vaccination in each state, they are listed in the link I posted.  You can scroll your mouse over each state on the map from the link, and it will show you the vaccination rate, or they are in a list format as well. 

[pogi]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Use of seat belts saves many more lives, and injures, than from not using them. So it is an apt comparison. Also driving on the public roads in the US isn't a right. It is privilege granted by the state. To bring the discussion back to immunizations. You don't have the right to infect other people. 

As far as my rights go, I have already addressed this previously, so if you are going to repeatedly make this claim I am going to ask for a CFR.  

If that was so, flu season sure makes a lot of criminals!  Did you get your flu shot yet this year by the way?  Statistically speaking, you probably didn't.  Either way, you have the right to not vaccinate. 

Edited November 21, 2016 by pogi

[ERMD]

On 11/17/2016 at 11:29 PM, Yirgacheffe said:

Totally aside from the discussion at hand.  But considering today's climate there is a cynical little center of me that asks, do you attribute the same gravity, if said government agency says something contrary to your belief?  Do you hold all government letters (USDA, DOE, DHUD, DHSS, DOI) in the same high regard and respect when they say something is of critical importance? 

Not at all.  Such terms are used in the medical literature to stress the need for further study and investigation, not to imply the existence of conclusive evidence.

[thesometimesaint]

On 11/20/2016 at 10:07 AM, pogi said:

As far as my rights go, I have already addressed this previously, so if you are going to repeatedly make this claim I am going to ask for a CFR.  

If that was so, flu season sure makes a lot of criminals!  Did you get your flu shot yet this year by the way?  Statistically speaking, you probably didn't.  Either way, you have the right to not vaccinate. 

Yes; I got my flu shot this year, and I have for the last 46 years. As a result I haven't had the flu for those 46 years. Plus I didn't give it to anyone else. I have the right to not get any vaccine, I don't have the right to pass a disease onto someone else.

SEE https://www.google.com/search?q=quarantine+sign&tbm=isch&imgil=v3oRNoPFxSzppM%3A%3B3NdQqWGsKS7F_M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.quicksmartsigns.com%252Fsafetysigns%252Fdanger-sign-12.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=v3oRNoPFxSzppM%3A%2C3NdQqWGsKS7F_M%2C_&usg=__qnbYsbLjD9CUxuZCYn_aGa3zjc4%3D&biw=1366&bih=619&ved=0ahUKEwiEzr38l7_QAhUH2mMKHezSC4wQyjcIQQ&ei=5rQ1WITDE4e0jwPspa_gCA#imgrc=v3oRNoPFxSzppM%3A

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Yes; I got my flu shot this year, and I have for the last 46 years. As a result I haven't had the flu for those 46 years. Plus I didn't give it to anyone else. I have the right to not get any vaccine, I don't have the right to pass a disease onto someone else.

SEE https://www.google.com/search?q=quarantine+sign&tbm=isch&imgil=v3oRNoPFxSzppM%3A%3B3NdQqWGsKS7F_M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.quicksmartsigns.com%252Fsafetysigns%252Fdanger-sign-12.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=v3oRNoPFxSzppM%3A%2C3NdQqWGsKS7F_M%2C_&usg=__qnbYsbLjD9CUxuZCYn_aGa3zjc4%3D&biw=1366&bih=619&ved=0ahUKEwiEzr38l7_QAhUH2mMKHezSC4wQyjcIQQ&ei=5rQ1WITDE4e0jwPspa_gCA#imgrc=v3oRNoPFxSzppM%3A

Yes, I have the right to not vaccinate, I also have the right to informed consent - adding a coercive element to promote an invasive medical procedures is an ethical violation.

There is no law against unintentional infection of others, sorry! 

[thesometimesaint]

Never said you didn't. You have no right to infect anyone else either knowingly or unknowingly..

SEE http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-criminal-negligence.html

[pogi]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Never said you didn't. You have no right to infect anyone else either knowingly or unknowingly..

SEE http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-criminal-negligence.html

You are grasping at straws with that one, but I do give you credit for creativity.  In order to be liable for negligence a person must have a duty and must breach that duty in some way.  Because I have no duty and actually have the right to not vaccinate (as you point out), I cannot be guilty of negligence.  Nice try though.  Do you really want to litter the courts with accusations of unintentional infection of flu?  Good luck proving negligence!  That would require first a duty, second proof that the other person (and not some other contact) actually infected you (that is nearly impossible and would require significant epidemiological investigation), and third, even if there was a law that actually required the other person to be vaccinated (which there isn't), it would require proof that the other person negligently refused vaccination (that is protected medical information by HIPAA that you would not have access to).

Edited November 23, 2016 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

You have no right to infect anyone else either knowingly or unknowingly..

If people don't have the "right" to unknowingly infect someone, then every little kid who brings home a cold for the family or passes off the chicken pox to the kids in his kindergarten are breaking the law or committing an unethical or immoral act.

Perhaps you should rephrase that unless you think sharing germs unknowingly can get one put in jail or sued.

There are certain acts of nature that it is nonsense to apply the idea of "rights" to, IMO.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

That is why we get our children vaccinated. I don't know how old you are but I remember well when parents were justifiably scared of a Polio outbreak.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is why we get our children vaccinated. I don't know how old you are but I remember well when parents were justifiably scared of a Polio outbreak.

So you are retracting your claim that people have some sort of right not to be infected by others?  If not, do you also believe people have a right not to get fleas or rabies from dogs?

[pogi]

54 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is why we get our children vaccinated. I don't know how old you are but I remember well when parents were justifiably scared of a Polio outbreak.

Those days are gone.  Now vaccines are responsible for polio in more countries than the wild virus is.  In 2015 there were vaccine derived polio outbreaks in over 20 countries worldwide.  The wild virus is limited to a handful of cases in 2 countries - Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

Edited November 25, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you are retracting your claim that people have some sort of right not to be infected by others?  If not, do you also believe people have a right not to get fleas or rabies from dogs?

No. Yes we do. Flea's wiped out half of Europe not that long ago, and we take public health measures against rabid dogs.

[pogi]

Nevermind

Edited November 25, 2016 by pogi