POINT/COUNTERPOINT: What’s government’s role in ensuring vaccinations?
Point: Paul Lundeen
It makes sense that the tiniest thing — a needle stick in the leg of a newborn — raises one of the biggest questions in our free society. What is the appropriate role of government over our lives?
We are once again engaged in that debate under the Gold Dome in Denver. Until almost 2 a.m. one morning recently we sat in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee and listened to testimony on SB20-163, this year’s vaccine registry bill.
The bill prompts debate about individual choice and the right of a person to avoid conscription into a state database. This database is designed to track that person or her family when her religious conviction or firmly held personal conclusion is that it would be inappropriate for her school-age child to fully comply with the government vaccine schedule. The bill essentially says, “Because you are different, we need to track you.”
To be clear, I vaccinated my children as infants and throughout their childhood. The schedule of required vaccines was considerably smaller then and a matter of informed personal choice. Also, it did not include items like the hepatitis B vaccine, an immunization appropriate for intravenous drug users and prostitutes, but now routinely administered to unknowing newborns on their first day of life.
The challenge comes because we have departed from a time of informed voluntary participation. Today we are sliding toward compelled participation in what has previously been a personal medical decision by virtue of government-driven efforts like SB20-163. The bill places a number of requirements on those who dare to do their research and make a judgment different from the government’s.
If SB20-163 is signed into law, individuals must collect a signature from their doctor if their religion or personal convictions are at odds with the government vaccine schedule. This matters to some individuals because strains of aborted fetal cell lines are part of some vaccines. It matters to others because their considered perspective on the safety and value vaccines is not the same as the government’s. This awkward construction puts a burden on health care professionals to evaluate a patient’s religious perspective or firmly held belief and might drive a wedge between patient and doctor.
To avoid this doctor-patient conflict, an individual may submit to an online education module created by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The training is heavy on pro-vaccine advocacy and sprinkled with a bit of shaming for those who don’t choose to vaccinate.
Additionally, those who seek exemption through the government-prescribed training (is it just me, or does that sound like fingernails on a chalkboard?) must allow a significant amount of personal information be collected into a database and then permit the government to use that personal information to communicate with them for any purposes the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment or other government agencies may deem appropriate.
If activity from other states is any indication, the current Colorado debate about choosing whether to vaccinate and the consequences of that decision might be quaint. New York and California are the most populous of a handful of states that have passed mandatory vaccine laws or eliminated religious and other nonmedical exemptions. These efforts to strike down personal freedom exemptions have been led by Democrats, which leads to a final observation: Your voluntary consent is no longer required here, and the government is increasingly willing to make this decision for you — and collect the personal information of those who dare to exercise their individual rights.
Rejecting — or dramatically amending — SB20-163 will demonstrate what we as a society believe about the role of government and the rights of individuals. It is my considered opinion that we must listen carefully to the gasp and scream of that needle-stuck newborn. Her wail is a cry that calls us to protect each individual’s rights.
Counterpoint: Dr. Kim Dulaney
The government should play a strong role in ensuring kids are vaccinated. The number one advancement in saving lives and preventing disease that has occurred in the last 100 years is vaccination. Government intervention is necessary to ensure that children are protected and additionally, from a public health perspective, to protect those who are immunosuppressed or otherwise unable to have vaccinations. My reasoning is threefold.
First of all, children die from the diseases that vaccines could protect them from. Measles is not simply a rash. There can be terrible complications including brain damage, heart damage and death. This is the case with most of the diseases for which vaccines are offered; and the higher the unvaccinated rate, the higher the percentage of kids getting diseases that are completely preventable. Measles and other deadly communicable diseases are on the rise throughout the country secondary to parents opting not to vaccinate their children.
The flu vaccine, often the most controversial since it is not 100% effective, still offers a lot of protection even if a patient comes down with the flu. A majority of the pediatric deaths from flu in the U.S. this year are from unvaccinated patients. Case in point: an unvaccinated child in Pueblo was diagnosed with influenza and the pediatrician recommended Theraflu; instead the parents opted for treatments recommended by an anti-vaxer website and the child died a few days later. To put that into perspective, if I, as a physician, had recommended the same thing, I would have been charged with malpractice. If it’s malpractice for me, it’s downright negligence on the parent’s part.
Secondly, in a fully vaccinated community children who can’t be vaccinated or are immunocompromised are protected through herd immunity. As soon as vaccination rates decline, more children contract the disease, and these most vulnerable kids are at high risk of infection. Just as smoking in restaurants has been banned due to the public health risk to others, vaccinations should be required to protect the community. A child doesn’t have a right to choose their own health care; this is left up to the parents. When parents make poor decisions to not vaccinate their children they are risking their children and many others in the community. This is where the government needs to step in.
And finally, there has been absolutely no proof that vaccinations cause autism. The original study has been debunked and many follow-up studies on thousands of children have proven the safety of vaccines. There is no medical evidence to prove that vaccines cause autism, yet this is the primary reason that people choose not to vaccinate their children. They have no science behind their argument.
One of the main arguments that children should not be required to be vaccinated is personal freedom. Here in Colorado children can attend public school and not be vaccinated for medical and nonmedical reasons. These reasons can be religious or otherwise. The bill before the Legislature, SB20-163, does not remove the option to take a nonmedical exemption. It simply evens the playing field by adding equal effort.
If parents want the freedom to make a choice that impacts public health, they need to do more than submit a note at the school office. They need to have a conversation with an immunizing provider or, if they find that too burdensome or aren’t interested in having that conversation, they have the option of watching the online education module at home.
What presents a significant and unreasonable burden on families is an outbreak of a preventable deadly disease. It’s important to ensure that children’s rights to go to school in a safe environment and to freedom from unnecessary risks are part of the vaccination conversation.
Sen. Paul Lundeen, a Republican, represents Senate District 9 in the Colorado General Assembly and serves as the Senate minority whip. Dr. Kim Dulaney is a cardiologist and a board member of Citizens Project, a Colorado Springs nonprofit that advocates for equity and inclusion.