Refusal to Vaccinate in Case of Religious Beliefs Research Paper

The case of the family of Jonas and Jennifer Yoder presents a challenge for the present-day courts. The parents’ refusal to vaccinate their children can be viewed either as a legitimate exercise of their right to a religious belief or a direct violation of the underlying governmental principles of public safety.¹ In order to establish the true nature of their demands, it is vital to examine all aspects of the matter and the previous practices under the Free Exercise Clause. Therefore, although the case seems to be simple from the perspective of the mentioned law, the interests of numerous actors complicate the ruling and should be assessed for making an appropriate decision in this regard.

In the first place, it is necessary to start with the discussion of general provisions of the First Amendment clarifying the religious freedoms of the citizens and their scope. According to these statements, the legislative power of the courts should not imply any restraints for the free exercise of religion.² On the contrary, the corresponding liberty for individuals should be maintained through distinguishing civil authority and people’s rights for their beliefs and practices deriving from them.³ From this point of view, the secular state of the government allows distinguishing the areas of influence of different entities as the principal guidance for all judicial proceedings. Hence, the demands of the Yoders can be seen as an attempt to claim their rights.

However, in order to demonstrate the real picture, it is critical to define whether this case is solely a matter of belief or it implies improper conduct of the participants as per legal considerations. The former’s difference from the latter is described by the law as the lack of actions motivated by individual perceptions.⁴ In turn, the behavior of people stemming from their religious views is another point and should not be confused with mere intention to protect one’s rights. In addition, the situation of the family is complicated by the fact that the court’s practices based on the given principle indicate the need to prohibit making informed medical decisions on behalf of children.⁵ It is explained by the conclusion that their potential desire to make martyrs of themselves should not hurt anyone else.

Finally, the issues of safety of the underage patients alongside the conditions of other people contribute to the conflict between the governmental policies and the parents’ perceptions. According to the official information concerning the vaccine against hepatitis B, it protects not only the citizens who take it but also others.⁶ The former might even have no symptoms while presenting a threat to society in terms of the spread of this disease.⁷ Since the examined care correlates with following public interests, this factor should be added to the limitations provided above.

In conclusion, based on the current judicial understanding of the Free Exercise Clause, the court should not rule in the Yoders’ favor. From the legal point of view, their claims are the efforts to make improper decisions on the grounds of their belief, whereas the well-being of their children is neglected. This case can be viewed as a matter of conduct rather than religion. Moreover, allowing them to refuse from the vaccination of the underage members of their family against hepatitis B can be harmful not only for them but also other people. Thus, it should be prevented from the considerations of greater benefits as opposed to the Yoders’ opinion.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Vaccine (Shot) for Hepatitis B.” n.d. Web.

Constitution Annotated. “Amdt1.1.4.1 Free Exercise Clause: Overview.” n.d. Web.

Law Shelf. “The Free Exercise Clause in Specific Contexts – Module 3 of 5.” n.d. Web.

Footnotes

1. “The Free Exercise Clause in Specific Contexts – Module 3 of 5,” Law Shelf. Web.
2. “Amdt1.1.4.1 Free Exercise Clause: Overview,” Constitution Annotated. n.d. Web.
3. Constitution Annotated, “Amdt1.1.4.1 Free Exercise Clause: Overview.”
4. Law Shelf, “The Free Exercise Clause in Specific Contexts – Module 3 of 5.”
5. Law Shelf, “The Free Exercise Clause in Specific Contexts – Module 3 of 5.”
6. “Vaccine (Shot) for Hepatitis B,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. n.d. Web.
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Vaccine (Shot) for Hepatitis B.”