As the dangers of not having children vaccinated become more well known, states are starting to cut back on the categories of exemptions given to parents who want to avoid vaccinating their children but yet want them to attend the same schools as other children and thus put them at risk. Vermont is the first state to remove the exemption based on parents’ philosophical beliefs. But since it keeps the religion exemption intact, some parents are suddenly ‘finding religion’.
Vermont earlier this year became the first state to remove a philosophical exemption allowing parents to skip the immunizations required to enroll in school but keep the religious exemption in place.
And while some states require evidence — a statement of religious beliefs, for instance — to support the claim that a child should be exempt for religious reasons, Vermont requires only checking a box on a form next to the word “religious.”
“The vast majority who used the philosophical exemption are planning to or are being forced to use the religious exemption,” said Jennifer Stella, president of the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice.
…Because Vermont is first down this particular path, there’s no answer to the question of whether states see a new-found interest in religion upon removing the philosophical exemption. But Shawn Venner and Aedan Scribner, who are raising their 8-month-old daughter, Zelda, in Cabot, said the issue may spark a revival.
“I grew up here in Cabot, and would love my daughter to be able to go to the same school I did,” said Scribner. “But to get her into that school I’m going to have to do something like convert religiously.”
The couple said they are not opposed to all vaccines for their daughter, but strongly support choice in the matter.
There’s been talk among friends of starting a new religion, Venner said, “a religion that says we’ll pretty much have a choice.”
So now we can expect people to profess bogus beliefs in old religions or newly created ones just in order to avoid vaccinating their children. As long as religions get special treatment, we will have this kind of abuse.
Sure, but this kind of abuse also spreads distaste for religious exemptions. The religious simply can’t restrain themselves from abusing every privilege they get, and it backfires on them if the onlookers identify with the victims and not the abusers.
Mano,
As an educator I occasionally work with students that, for various medical reasons, must be segregated from the general population. I think that this might be one path to take here.
Create a mini-school within the building or on a school campus and restrict those students not vaccinated, for whatever reasons, to that facility or portion of a facility.
Jeff
Dude. No. There should only be medical exemptions, and even then, only when the child’s allergy (or immune-deficiency, or whatever) is documented by an actual doctor.
hyphenman, #2
No, the children should not be mistreated for their parents’ actions.
The real solution is to remove religious exemptions. They make no sense whatsoever. Why should subscribing to a sufficiently popular (and government recognized) superstition give you extra rights that a non-superstitious person wouldn’t get? That’s what the real problem is.
Off topic, sorry, but :
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-30/israel-palestine-and-jordan-united-through-environmentalism/6814928
Hopefully interesting. Religion and culture and so much more divides but in the end, we share the one planet, landscape and in this case river.
In Australia, there’s a fake church which you can join for $25 and get your religious exemption.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/antivaccination-group-encourages-parents-to-join-fake-church-20150127-12zcrc.html
What does “fake” mean? “But the the Church of Conscious Living, founded eight years ago, is not registered as a church or charity with the federal government’s Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, but rather a business with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.”
It is a violation of the child’s rights to say the parents’ religion justifies leaving them open to harm. The presupposition is that the child automatically shares the parents choice of religion (religion is a choice not an inheritable trait) parents do not get a “right” to raise ‘their’ children ignorant and unhealthy. Childrens right are constantly being stepped on by parents.
@ Saad, No. 4
That’s true. You’re absolutely right. I would never suggest that the children be punished for their parent’s actions.
I also agree that removing religious exemptions is the optimal solution, but doing so will likely take years, if we can accomplish that goal at all. In the interim, students are at risk.
I do work with students that, for medical reasons such as severe allergies, must be isolated from the general student populations. I, and the schools, wish that this was not necessary and that the students would be free to socialize and learn with their peers, but that is simply not a safe option. The students are afforded a quality—often better education due to one-on-one or very small class sizes— education.
This is not the best answer, but facing the immediate situation, I cannot think of another that protects all the children.
Jeff
Since non-vaccinated students pose a health risk to the other students, schools must be obligated to avert that risk. There is no sense of punishment involved.
No, the children should not be mistreated for their parents’ actions.
The real solution is to remove religious exemptions. They make no sense whatsoever. Why should subscribing to a sufficiently popular (and government recognized) superstition give you extra rights that a non-superstitious person wouldn’t get? That’s what the real problem is.