Introduction
At issue, here are two concepts: individual freedom and the collective good. After careful examination of both sides of this issue, it is clear that the issue is actually currently not an issue. If it were thought that allowing that parents constitutionally have the right to refuse potentially administration of dangerous vaccines to their young or infant children would catalyze a mass refusal of vaccinations, then there might be an issue.
However, informed consent is still protected, and as this quote from Rebekah Elliott shows, there are issues: “According to a medical report concerning the rise of mercury levels, Dr. Donald Millers states that “Autism was discovered in 1943, in American children, twelve years after ethyl mercury (thimerosal) was added to the pertussis vaccine.” (Mercury on the Mind, Dr. Donald Miller) Barbara Loe Fisher also states in an interview, “I’ve always argued that public health is not measured only by an absence of infectious disease. It also is measured by the absence of chronic disease.” (Elliott 2008)
Where the irrefutable evidence of any actual danger to public health has not been presented, the constitution protects choice. Since there is definite evidence that there is “sometimes” danger to the child being immunized, this evidence tips the balance in favor of parental choice.
Main body
In cases where an unimmunized person can possibly become a “carrier” of deadly disease, constitutional law would seem to favor mandated immunization. This is, so far, only true of smallpox and maybe meningitis. Measles, while potentially dangerous to adults and pregnant women, is not a danger to the whole population. Mumps and Chicken Pox are more severe in adults, but they are not fatal. HPV and other sexually transmitted or blood-born diseases are in a separate category. Yes, they can be carried and not manifest, and they are dangerous or fatal. However, young children are not sexually active and do not pose any threat from these diseases. Therefore, there should be some choices presented, at least as concerns the age of the child at vaccination.
In cases where certain elements in the vaccine “might” be dangerous, such as with the mercury in the Pertussis vaccine, a mandate for the removal of the dangerous component would seem to be in order. If the dangerous component is not removed then parents have a constitutional right to refuse to have their children vaccinated. In cases where there is simply not enough evidence to really prove a vaccine safe, they also have the same constitutional rights.
It is not clear cut where to draw the line, though one must be drawn. However, the U.S. Constitution does protect all citizens and guarantee them the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (Preamble U.S. Constitution). Where clear evidence can be presented that the absence of vaccination presents a clear danger to the greater population, as in the case of Smallpox, the vaccination can and should be mandated.
However, the ideal age for vaccination that presents the least danger to the child must be established and set as the time required. For other vaccinations, which do not present danger until adolescence, that should be the target age. In cases where there is no evidence of real danger to the public from non-vaccinated children, as in cases for Chicken-Pox, parents should have the ultimate choice.
Conclusion
It’s clear that politicians, and even medical personnel, would like to eradicate as many diseases as possible. This is possibly good. However, there is also a possibility that even more, dangerous diseases will appear if that particular niche is evacuated by the eradication of the current occupant. Therefore, such eradication programs may not be the best course.
Therefore, the choice is precedent where a clear danger to public health cannot be presented, or where a nonessential danger to the child is present. In cases where public health is a definite risk, the vaccination should be mandated, but care must be taken to mitigate the danger by identifying the best possible circumstances and age for vaccination. The government, under the Constitution, cannot mandate non-essential vaccinations, and it must protect the child in any case, even where vaccination is clearly needed to protect public health. However, in all cases, parents must be properly educated concerning vaccines and they cannot be charged for mandated vaccinations. Those costs should come from the coffers of the public they seek to protect.