Kahn: Philosophical exemption for vaccines law is working as it should

This op-ed is by Joan Kahn, who is a parent and a member of the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice. She lives in Montpelier.

Legislators are hearing from many constituents about S.199 – a bill to remove the philosophical exemption to vaccination.

I have been following this bill closely since late January, and have been unable to understand the underlying reasons why the Vermont Legislature is considering removing the philosophical exemption.

According to the United Health Rankings we are the healthiest state in nation, with the second-lowest infectious disease rate. We rank 22nd for immunization in children age 19-35 months with a rate of 91.2 percent (the range is 83-96 percent, only two states in the nation are above 95 percent).

Given the healthiness of our state why are legislators being told that the philosophical exemption is such a problem?

The explanation I heard during the Senate testimony as to why exemption rates are rising is that parents are misinformed about vaccine dangers, and are using the exemption inappropriately. In reality, the recent changes occurred when two vaccines were added to the list of required immunizations. While it is not easy to find this information, the Vermont Department of Health pinpoints the 2008-09 school year as the time where exemption rates changed from about 2 percent to close to 6 percent (these numbers are for kindergarten students) and the graph showing the data makes it very clear that the reason for the increase is “Varicella (chicken pox) and HepB requirement added to school rules in 2008.” Yet this information is being used to imply that schoolchildren are putting our communities at increased risk of polio, pertussis or measles.

Given this context, I found the testimony about uninformed parents who neglect their civic duty particularly offensive. Parents in Vermont care both about the health of their children and the health of their communities. We are not polarized over the issue of vaccinations. The proponents of the bill often talk about children that are “unvaccinated,” but one child can fall into both categories. Parents, grandparents, many doctors and school nurses know immunization decisions are very complex, and are respectful of parents who need to make these choices.

The vaccination schedule in Vermont has several sections: required for school, required for daycare and recommended. The required list includes MMR, polio, DtaP (where the P is for pertussis/whooping cough), chicken pox and HepB. The philosophical exemption is submitted for school or daycare entry for children whose parents have chosen to skip one or more of the required vaccines. Children who are missing a booster shot or are behind on the schedule would use a provisional admittance.

Is there a significant change in the vaccination rates for measles, pertussis or polio? A look at the state health data shows there isn’t: All of these rates are above 91 percent and the approximately 9 percent of remaining children include those on provisional admittance as well as exemptions.

Are the recent pertussis cases due to the philosophical exemption? Health department information does not state that, and more than half of recent cases occurred in those who were fully vaccinated (Vermont Department of Health, January 2012 health advisory). Given these realities, are we passing judgment on the philosophical exemption based on emotional reactions to unclear information?

We deserve better. Our legislators deserve to be given accurate and clear information and parents deserve to be treated with respect. Our school communities should not be portrayed as a battleground over vaccines – that is not the reality. Vaccines are required for school and daycare. No one has suggested we do away with those requirements; parents are just asking that we respect and understand that vaccines are not one size fits all. The philosophical exemption is being used as it was intended, not because parents are lazy or scared.

I would hope that Vermonters can see what is going on and agree that this issue goes beyond finger pointing and blame. Our public health policy should be based on real information and real world examples. And the bottom line is the state of Vermont should continue to respect the authority of the parent in making medical decisions for their family.

Comments

  1. Russell Aminzade :

    There is a lot of hysteria and fear around immunizations, almost all of it based on phony science. There seems to be very little thought given to the consequences of not vaccinating. The problem is that when a very high percentage of the population is immune, “herd immunity” keeps the disease from spreading. A slight decrease in that percent can be lethal for those who because of their age or other medical reasons genuinely can’t be safely immunized, or (as the author mentions) in those who HAVE been vaccinated. Please watch this.

    http://www.euronews.com/2012/03/26/eliminating-measles-personal-stories/

  2. Dorian Yates :

    I agree. There is a lot of hysteria and fear around vaccinations—much from those pushing for mandatory vaccinations. They offer news clips about measles and polio. They report large scary numbers without breaking down information. The CDC literature states that before the chicken pox vaccine that 4 million people a year would get the chicken pox and 100 would die. That sounds horrible except when you do the math. That is 1 out of every 40,000. No one likes the idea of dying or suffering, but this figure has to be put into perspective in relation to all the things we do daily like drive cars. Reason.com did some calculations on odds of causes of death and reported that “in 2003 about 45,000 Americans died in motor accidents out of population of 291,000,000. So, according to the National Safety Council this means your one-year odds of dying in a car accident is about one out of 6500. What about walking across the street? A one-year risk of one in 48,500. Drowning? A one-year risk of one in 88,000. In a fire? About the same risk as drowning. Murder? A one-year risk of one in 16,500. What about falling? Essentially the same as being murdered.
    So shall we never leave our homes (although even there we could fall, be murdered, be in a fire)? I think not. We are close to eight times MORE likely to die from a car accident than the chicken pox and yet all us get in cars multiple times a day without a second thought and without being vaccinated against car accidents.
    I agree—stop the fear mongering.

Comments

*

Comment policy Privacy policy
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Kahn: Philosophical exemption for vaccines law is working as it shoul..."