Choosing not to vaccinate your kids can be, in aggregate, deadly for kids who cannot be vaccinated. Unfortunately, that lack of hard, direct, 1:1 linkage (person X is opted out of vaccinations, person Y gets sick, or worse) provides cover for folk to dodge the results of their choice.
The problem with the solution sought by the father in this story is that the people most directly affected by keeping kids out of school whose parents have chosen not to vaccinate them are the kids themselves. Well, sure, I guess the parents would be stuck with the question of how the heck to get their kids educated, but the kids would be impacted, too.
There is some irony, though, in the anecdote about the father being warned not to send any peanut products to school because there were kids there with allergies. How would we treat a parent who said, "Well, I think peanut allergies are overblown, and it's my belief that little Tommy needs a big PB&J for lunch every day and a sack of peanuts at snack time in order to grow up healthy, and, by God, that's my right as a parent to give him those things"?
To Protect His Son, A Father Asks School To Bar Unvaccinated Children
A 6-year-old can’t be vaccinated against measles because he is recovering from leukemia. He faces a higher risk because parents at his California school have chosen not to vaccinate their kids.
It's very sad that kids will have to die to hopefully change our laws and insist on vaccinations. At least for measles, everyone should be vaccinated.
+Paula Jones All of the MMR diseases can have serious effects on those around them.
So much medical information is already required before our children can go to public schools anyway. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if you aren't willing to vaccinate your children, you'll have to send them to a private school that takes unvaccinated kids. The difference between the peanut allergy is that any child can have a peanut allergy. If a poor kid has a peanut allergy, you can't ask his parents to spend money they don't have to send him to a private school. However, from what I've read, it seems as if a large percentage of the parents who choose not to vaccinate are actually fairly well off and could afford to send their children to private schools.
I also don't think the peanut allergy is equivalent because peanut allergies aren't contagious.
+Martha Swanson great points. As well vaccinations are obtainable by those that cannot afford them. Which to me is the main consideration. If vaccinations are freely obtainable there shouldn't be an excuse.
Personally, either force the kids to vaccinate or they are banned from schools and other public areas.
I would think that if a school system allows unvaccinated kids but bans nuts, that is a lawsuit waiting to happen based on the current SCotUS position regarding "beliefs".
+Martha Swanson I think you had my case reversed; I wasn't suggesting (even in the hypothetical) banning allergic kids, but considering the ridiculousness idea of a "personal belief exemption" as to sending peanut products (vs. an unvaccinated kid) to school.
+Stan Pedzick I would feel more sanguine about that if, as I noted, it wasn't the kids that were going to be most impacted by their parents' folly.
I thought kids had to have their shots to even get into school? That's not done anymore?
+Mark Means several states (Colorado & California included) allow for "religious" exemptions.
+Dave Hill that's what home-schooling is for, isn't it? Plus, isn't the parent's choice if they do not learn anything?
Were I the father (and I’m not and it wouldn’t work anyway, I’m sure), I’d find alternative education for my child and demand that the County pay for it because it is deliberately endangering his life. And those parents that won’t vaccinate? Don’t think for a moment they give a rat’s behind if this precious little one lives or dies.
+Dave Hill I got your point, and i agree with you on it. I was just following the comparison in other directions because I don't think the peanut allergy thing is entirely similar. I wouldn't argue if my kids' school told us to stop bringing peanuts but I also think it's much easier to accommodate children with peanut allergies safely in some other way whereas that's not really possible with kids who might be carrying measles.
Just privatize the school system, and if a school says "you have to vaccinated (if possible) to go here" then they can take their kids to a disease ridden school of death, homeschool them, or get them vaccinated.
Failure to vaccinate (except when medically unable to safely do so) should result in charges of child endangerment
This must be a case of different places, different laws. Here if you're not up to date you get suspended until you're brought up to date. If you refuse to get your children their shots then they'll be expelled. It's the law, and religion doesn't excuse that requirement.
+Peter Jaszkowiak Well, as noted, those other options do exist, without privatizing the school system (which is an awful idea for other reasons).
+Robb Obviously you Canadians don't love FREEDOM enough to kill other children for it.
One of my relatives is about the age of this child and has the highest sensitivity ever measured in NZ. He's got emergency injectors at school and home to cover his problem and he know not to have peanuts anywhere near him as even dust can cause him to have respiratory failure. The other children and teachers in his school know, and keep away when they have peanuts. No need to bar other children.
Clearly my peanuts metaphor was poorly written, since it's being so misunderstood. 🙂
I was likening the disbelieving arrogance of a parent sending a voluntarily non-immunized child to school with the disbelieving arrogance of a parent sending peanut products to school with their kid, even when warned about the potential dangers to others of each action.
+Dave Hill what would be bad about privatizing schools? Higher performance and lower cost is somehow bad?
+Peter Jaszkowiak testing and objective proof says otherwise. All it is, is a money making scam.