One person's freedom to do or, in this case, to not do something ends/stops where it encroaches upon the rights of another person. In this case, the child with cancer has a right to life. It then follows that the freedom of a parent to not vaccinate their child becomes the lesser concern. That parent would perhaps argue that if administered, the vaccine could make their child sick or even cause death. Fine. But then that parent should not impose their decision on someone else's child. In this scenario, the child that has not been vaccinated should have to attend another daycare. Because however that parent attempts to secure their child's life (in this case, denying vaccination), it cannot and should not involve possibly taking away another child's right to life.

For clarification, when I say that the non-vaccinated child should attend another daycare, I mean the one who's parents refused on philosophical grounds. NOT the child with cancer.

Yes, it should be illegal to attend public schools if you haven't been vaccinated. The kids without vaccines could go to a special school if they must. There must be some price to take risks with other people this way.

An often overlooked part of freedoms and rights is that they have responsibilities that accompany them. A parent who refuses to vaccinate their child is trading one perceived risk for their child for another. As parents, this is within their rights to do, even if it is mistaken. Choices have consequences as well.

The problem is that this choice also puts other children at risk and can incur some very real costs to the rest of us in terms of resources spent on public health. This is an act that has consequences outside your family. You are getting some benefit, while everyone else is shouldering increased risk.

What might be the fairest way to deal with this issue, is to ask them to shoulder more of the burden. Some multiplier or surcharge to health insurance would be appropriate. Since your choice puts an added burden on the heath system and puts others at risk, it is appropriate that you be asked to offset this risk in another manner.

People are already expected to pay more for some personal choices, such as smoking. This choice not only costs other people more, but actively puts them at risk. The freedom to make choices also implies the obligation to deal with the consequences of those choices.

So the desire of the few trumps the rights of the many?

realsleep:

Yes, it should be illegal to attend public schools if you haven't been vaccinated. The kids without vaccines could go to a special school if they must. There must be some price to take risks with other people this way.

Would this be a viable solution? I'm not necessarily saying it isn't, but the way I usually process whether or not something would work is to see if I can find a way that it wouldn't. Just as a matter of discussion, let's throw some stuff out there:

All unvaccinated kids go to a special school. Would this also include kids who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons? If yes - wow, now they are really at risk. If no - then assume they go to public schools with vaccinated kids.

So, kids who are unvaccinated for medical reasons go to public school with kids who are vaccinated. Is there more than one such child at the public school? If no - then unvaccinated child is protected by the herd. If yes - then they could be a risk to each other.

Seems like it depends on how many unvaccinated kids we're talking about, and whether or not it's possible to keep them away from each other. I don't have any stats on the percentage of unvaccinated kids currently in public schools. At what point does this solution cease to be a solution? How many kids unvaccinated for medical reasons attending public schools would it take to create the same level of risk currently in public schools?

genevieve

It would probably be viable, in that the number of kids who are not vaccinated for legitimate reasons is very small. It's the whack-jobs and paranoids who create risk by increasing the proportion of unvaccinated kids to a level that disrupts herd immunity.

In short, there's no problem - ethical or otherwise - with kids who cannot be vaccinated getting a 'free ride,' but there is a legitimate basis for annoyance over flat-earthers and other clowns who refuse vaccination for reasons of superstition.

Herd immunity starts to fail at a vaccination percentage that is defined by a number of virus-specific factors. It is generally, though, around 85%. The paranoids and whack-jobs have already disrupted this in several parts of the country (absurdly, often where the Prius sells well...).

So people who have a different belief than yours are "whack jobs"?And people make a choice for "medical reasons" are right, while someone who make that same choice for philosophical or religious reasons don't have that right? All these kids getting autism whose parents and many of whose doctors believe it was caused by vaccines, could not possibly have any merit? Quite an open mind you have there. As for me and my family we go vaccinated for most things, and never had any problems. But I am able respect other peoples rights to make their own decisions for whatever their reasons.

I have no more respect for people who ignore the evidence on vaccine safety than I do people who think the Earth is flat, or that Jesus and the dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time.

What would you call someone who encouraged their ten year old to smoke, because in their belief system, it helped their immunity? If you believe that this would be irresponsible, why do you believe that? Choosing to ignore some science just because a Playboy bunnie says so is comparably foolish - so yes, whack jobs.

I have no problem with people holding different beliefs from mine; I do have a problem with people putting their own kids and others' in harms way because of irrational beliefs. And ignoring the evidence on vaccination is irrational.

While we are at it, why don't we make smoking illegal, since I have asthma and I can't go to my favorite place to eat because people refuse to believe that smoke can harm them, and then just an hour ago I saw a young mother smoking in the car with the window rolled up. and then lets go ahead and make sugar illegal... and food with saturated fats since all these fat unhealthy people are making my health insurance unaffordable and jamming up the health system, and lets not forget making church on Sundays mandatory since the MAJORITY of people believe that your going to hell if you don't attend, and there is no reason for their children to suffer because of THIER silly beliefs. I choose not to get vaccinated because I don't trust a health industry that continuously lies for profit and has been caught, and by the why my nephew was on of the FEW children who did suffer brain damage from the Mercury. He doesn't have autism, but he had clear Mercury poisoning from the vaccines given to close together. The evidence is not clear and unbiased and when our government starts overseeing the way it should be, I will get vaccinated.

1.) I agree that smoking in public places should be illegal. Scientific evidence supports this.

2.) Sugar? What's that got to do with anything? No scientific evidence sugar per se is harmful, other than to your teeth if you don;t care for them.

3.) What scientific evidence would anyone provide to support the contention that going to church was important for salvation in eternity and all that?

4.) With respect, I am very doubtful indeed about the quality of the diagnosis of mercury poisoning in your nephew.

5.) You're an adult - you make your own choices. The rest of us, however, should be entitled to expect that unvaccinated people will be excluded from certain privileges where there is evidence they put others at risk. This is not about compelling anyone to do anything - but choices have consequences.

It seems as if you have it backwards. A person choosing not get their child vaccinated is not what is putting this boys life at risk, it is first the cancer, then the Chemo/radiation treatments that is destroying his immune system and third it is his mom putting him in daycare exposing him to germs that can be potentially life threatening, many of which that can not be vaccinated against like the common cold or pink eye. These two conditions are contagious before symptoms show up and could just as easily cause death or permanent injury to him with him having no immune system. Furthermore I don't remember anywhere in the constitution that states a child has a right to go to daycare but it does give people the freedom to choose for themselves and their families on matter of medical treatment. There are many other options that would suit his delicate health condition much better which as the article states they ultimately ended up going with.

My daughter has sever allergies to wheat, peanut, eggs, all melon, and red dye (and the wheat and peanut ones can be life threatening) she will be unable to go many regular day cares or schools. However I could not imagine going into a day care and getting all upset that they allow wheat and peanuts and then write an article stating that because so many children now days have these kind of allergies that day cares and schools should be forced to only allow foods in that do not contain these items. No, rather then infringing on others freedoms I would just find something that is more suitable and safe for my child, and not blame others for my plight.

Sorry Sunnybunny but kid's don't catch autism. Autism has been linked to a fragile X gene.

Autism was not identified as a seperate diagnosis until the late 1970's. Severely autistic children were lumped under under schizophrenia (I know, spelled wrong) and milder cases were identified under various behaviour and developmental disorders.

Diseases such as polio, rubella etc. do not respond to philosophy, they are microscopic, mindless killing machines. How is this choice any better than a fundamentalist christian trying to pray away their child's diabetes? The only difference is that the diabetic child will not sicken or kill anyone else, unlike the unvaccinated child.

The choice they are making are contrary to science, medicine and facts. This scare and a lot of the misinformation was promoted by trial lawyers looking for big jury awards. And Oh by the way, if your child starts a polio epidemnic, and my child ends up in an iron lung, do I get to sue you and Jenny McCarthy.

The anti vaccine groups qualify for the own wing at the creationist museum.

@faithispower7 "I don't remember anywhere in the constitution that states a child has a right to go to daycare but it does give people the freedom to choose for themselves and their families on matter of medical treatment." I said the child has a right to life. I did not say anything about a right to daycare. Your daughter's situation is different, in my opinion. I would think that, while difficult and time-consuming, there are ways around it. She obviously doesn't eat those trigger foods. And perhaps can't even eat "safe" foods that have been prepared using the same surfaces/utensils as allergic foods were. Maybe it goes even further; she can't touch a table that a kid has just smeared his peanut butter laden fingers on. In those cases, you buy food substitutions/alternatives, make sure safe foods are prepared in special ways, and because you can't control what other kids do with their food around your daughter, choose another day care option. I have Celiac Disease, so I know about how sensitive the body responds to foods, even when they aren't directly consumed. I do feel for you and your daughter. In your daughter's case, you have the ability to usually protect her from those foods that trigger allergic reactions. But if not, there are perhaps ways to counter it. Inhalers, those epinephrine shots, other medicines, etc. Her allergies are life threatening, no doubt, but there are probably many ways to quickly bring her out of a life-threatening allergic reaction. If I am wrong, please tell me. But if a kid has cancer and gets sick, there is little that can be done to reverse his rapidly declining health. In other words, eating an allergy inducing food may cause severe illness but, if quickly treated with medicine/shots/etc, would it necessarily constitute a death sentence in the way that getting sick while having cancer would? Lastly, I would argue that wheat, peanuts, etc. while dangerous for your daughter, are not inherently bad foods. They provide nutritional support for people. Why should people forgo those foods (if they are not allergic), putting their own health into peril?

Although I think people should vaccinate their children, I think the daycare problem comes down to "first come, first served." Besides, the daycare provider has (and should have) the ultimate say, so if s/he is not willing to kick out the unvaccinated child who is already attending, the immunosuppressed child is out of luck.

Public schools are a different matter entirely, and in such a situation, parents should be required to vaccinate their children or make other arrangements.