The current health problem in New Jersey is the immunization of children, or precisely the right of parents to refuse this procedure for religious reasons. The public claims that the elimination of this exception violates the rights of citizens. At the same time, people are not aware of the dangers of diseases that can be prevented by vaccines, since they do not have a genetic memory of them. However, there are high risks of outbreaks of infectious diseases that have been virtually eliminated in recent decades due to an elevated level of the non-immunized population. Such an epidemic threatens the health and lives of the people, as well as the economic consequences for the state. Therefore, the main task of the government is to convince people of the importance of vaccination for the adoption of a law on the elimination of religious exemptions to childhood vaccines in New Jersey.
Debate continues in New Jersey over government efforts to pass a new law eliminating religious exemptions to childhood vaccines. Many residents are outraged by such a bill as they believe that it violates their legal rights and forces them to disregard the rules of their religion. Respecting the rights of people and their faith is an essential factor of the democracy realization, but this aspect threatens thousands of other lives. Consequently, despite some flaws in providing people’s freedoms, a bill prohibiting religious exemptions to childhood vaccines is a necessity for society, since it saves thousands of American citizens.
The reason for the anger of many residents is the state’s efforts to oblige them and their children to vaccinate against infectious diseases, although earlier, they had the opportunity to avoid this procedure. The first version of the bill stated that the religious and philosophical beliefs of people are not the reason for refusing child vaccination at all private and public kindergartens, schools, and colleges (Tully, 2020). This proposal partially violates the right of residents to religious freedoms as it obliges them to act against the rules of their church. Protesters believe that their religion forbids them to intervene in God’s providence and interfere with fate by protecting themselves from disease (Tully, 2020). Such a position is inherent in orthodox representatives of some faiths, as well as religious communities.
For this reason, the government amended the bill in a way that allows residents to avoid vaccination. In the second version of the law, the government proposed removing religious exemptions only in public educational institutions; however, leave freedom of choice for private schools and kindergartens (Tully, Otterman, & Hoffman, 2020). Despite the politicians’ attempts to find a compromise, the bill failed voting on January 8, 2020, and subjected to even greater criticism, since this decision raises the issue of social inequality (Tully, Otterman, & Hoffman, 2020). In other words, such a proposition allows wealthy people to buy the right to vaccination refusal by paying for private education.
However, despite all the resentment of citizens, the bill has many rationales for its approval. The main reason for its initiation is the high level of unvaccinated children, which caused measles outbreaks in some parts of the United States in 2014-2015 (Tully, 2020). This situation demonstrates the vulnerability of American society to epidemic diseases that could be easily prevented through medical measures. Besides, the existing exceptions have a rather vague wording that allowed many parents to manipulate them because of their interests or unreasonable beliefs. For example, many people used their religious beliefs to protect their children from vaccinations, but, in everyday life, they did not adhere to its strict canons of their church (Pierik, 2016). The real reason for their refusal could be a belief in the myth about vaccines as a cause of autism or lack of their effectiveness (Pierik, 2016). Thus, in 2018-2019, about 14 thousand children were not vaccinated for religious reasons (Tully, Otterman, & Hoffman, 2020). In other words, 14 thousand children are not immune to some severe and fatal diseases.
Moreover, there is an idea that argues that religious exemptions may exist because it does not threaten society due to the low percentage of people who use it. Scientists state that 92-94% of people should be vaccinated to create herd immunity, or conditions in which a disease cannot develop in society (Pierik, 2016). The level of unvaccinated children in New Jersey is only 2,6%, which does not interfere with herd immunity (Tully, Otterman, & Hoffman, 2020). However, according to Pierik (2016), usually, 6-8% of unprotected citizens are people who cannot be vaccinated or do not respond to this procedure due to medical reasons, and infants who have not reached the age of immunization. Consequently, religious exemptions pose a threat to society, since, unlike physiological reasons, they can be easily avoided. Thus, adults who voluntarily refuse vaccination for their children endanger not only their lives but also the health of thousands of people.
This situation demonstrates the fact that modern American society does not have a genetic memory about severe infectious diseases. Smallpox, dysentery, and polio no longer exist in society or are very rare, so concerns about the possible harm of vaccines have obscured anxiety about the more dangerous consequences of the diseases. The documentary “A time before vaccinations” vividly describes the impact of these illnesses, as well as attitude people to vaccines as to salvation. For example, one woman recalls the fear of people who, after the death of a young girl because of polio, did not know how to protect themselves (New Jersey European Heritage Association, 2019). Official data also show that the use of the recommended vaccines against 13 diseases reduces their frequency by 90% compared to the twentieth century, and many of them were completely or 99% eliminated (Orenstein & Ahmed, 2017). Besides, the analysis showed that this reduction saved about 40 thousand lives and prevented 20 million diseases for a single birth cohort (Orenstein & Ahmed, 2017). These figures are evidence that no reason can justify the thousands of ruined lives due to the incautiousness of some people.
Many diseases exist today, which was clearly shown by outbreaks of measles and diphtheria in the last five years. According to Pierik (2016), the probability of measles infection for an unvaccinated person is 90%, and out of 1000 patients, two die from the disease. Measles also has multiple consequences, such as encephalitis, cerebral edema, pneumonia, deafness, and even mental retardation (Pierik, 2016). Even if some parents are ready to expose their children to such a danger because of their sincere religious beliefs, people who are unprotected due to physiological reasons also involuntarily become vulnerable to the illnesses. Consequently, the observance of the religious rights of some people violates the freedom of others to health and life.
There is also a pragmatic argument for the abolition of religious exemptions that is based on economic factors. If an epidemic of any disease breaks out in the state, public places and whole cities are quarantined to prevent the spread of the disease, which stops the work of many enterprises. Besides, the vaccine has a much lower cost than treatment, and the state will have to spend significant funds to cure its inhabitants and stop the epidemic. For example, an analysis of 10 vaccines in low- and middle-income countries showed that an investment of 34 billion dollars in vaccination saved $ 586 billion in reducing costs of treatment and $ 1.53 trillion when all economic factors are included (Orenstein & Ahmed, 2017). Thus, a partial restriction of the religious rights of a small part of the population can contribute to the financial well-being of the whole society.
The last example in favor of the elimination of the religious exemptions is the epidemic of the coronavirus in China, which currently shows the consequences of an uncontrolled spread of the disease. While some Americans are struggling to abandon vaccines, millions of Chinese are waiting and hoping for its invention, which can protect them from a deadly disease. Therefore, Americans and the world need to take advantage of the medical knowledge and opportunities to avoid the dire consequences of the spread of viruses and infections but not fight against them.
In conclusion, the bill on the abolition of religious exceptions to childhood vaccinations has many scientific, medical, and social justifications, although it is not supported by the public. The problem with this proposal is that many people do not realize the importance of vaccination as they do not have a genetic memory of the terrible symptoms and consequences of infectious diseases. Consequently, the government’s task today is not to compromise but to convince society about the need for vaccination as the only way to avoid epidemics and deaths. Besides, even if the adoption of the law is not a sufficient reason for people with orthodox beliefs, this measure will help reduce the manipulation with refusals due to religious reasons.
References
New Jersey European Heritage Association. (2019). A time before vaccinations [Video file]. Web.
Orenstein, W. A., & Ahmed, R. (2017). Simply put: Vaccination saves lives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(16), 4031–4033.
Pierik, R. (2016). Mandatory vaccination: An unqualified defence. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 35(2), 381–398.
Tully, T. (2020). Bill to end religious exemptions for vaccinations collapses in N.J. The New York Times. Web.
Tully, T., Otterman, S., & Hoffman, J. (2020). How anti-vaccine activists doomed a bill in New Jersey. The New York Times. Web.