my sympathies on your child's battle with a compromised immune system. i'm sure he's in the prayers of everyone who read your slate column

that said, the day care centers, schools, workplaces, and public malls of america cannot be regimented for your convenience. (full disclosure - BA is secular, and has no personal or religious opposition to vaccinations)

the obvious solution is to care for sick child at home, rather than expect this care to be provided by a public access day care center. if your child's health and safety is paramount, wouldn't your decision to take on the role of full time caregiver be a profoundly demonstrative choice?

requiring every citizen to be vaccinated for the disease du jour may put your mind at ease ,but it will be a false panacea. hundreds of people actually die each year from the unfortunate genetic inheritance THEY carry - undetected sensitivity to a random vaccine or medicine.

the solution lies not with the inconvenience and risk to others, but with doing the right thing for your own child, rather than selecting day care so you can enjoy a full time career.

Others have said this in other posts, but I will say it another way. To those of you who have asked why the author does not simply stay home: are you that unimaginative that you cannot conjure a reason why someone might have to work? To imply, as I think this post does, that wanting to send a child to daycare is some sort of abdication of motherly duty is offensive. Good lord! Perhaps the child was finally well enough to attend day care? Perhaps sick leave for the mother was finally running out? Do I need go on?

Nobody said that! But daycare is the LAST place an immunocompromised child should be... for the protection of the sick child! It's not a condemnation on one's parenting... it's a simple fact that toddlers get ill and transmit illness much more readily than adults. Why risk it... and no ... "a normal as possible childhood experience... " is not a resonable argument. Either is "I have to work for benefits or to pay for the care". Many people without income have terribly ill kids and those kids DO get medical care. Everyday.

The author cannot be so worked up over vaccine preventable illness and not consider all the other illness that is just as dangerous to an immunocompromised child. If you are concerned enough about one to FORCE others to get vaccinated, then you must also be just as concerned regarding the others...and the only real way to prevent those is to STAY AWAY FROM SICK KIDS!

now, i see. thanks. i'm with you. you meet the smartest people here.

Baltimore,

Although technically correct because you included "or medicine", your statement:

"hundreds of people actually die each year from the unfortunate genetic inheritance THEY carry - undetected sensitivity to a random vaccine or medicine."

is quite disingenuous in that the number of deaths attributable to the adminsitration vaccines is orders of magntiude less than "hundreds" per year.

Also, you should note that expsoure of immunocompromised children is only one part of the debate. I have a healthy infant son that is as yet too young to receive the MMR vaccination. Why should he bear the risk of acquiring measles from an unimmunized child at day care? You propose that the authors child should not attend day care. Certainly one should consider the converse question of why any unimmunized child should be permitted to attend a "public access day care center"? If you want to make the anti-social choice regarding immunization you should be prepared to accept the consequences of that decision.

baltimore aureole:

that said, the day care centers, schools, workplaces, and public malls of america cannot be regimented for your convenience.

Actually, that's not correct. There are plenty of rules regarding what can and can't happen at these venues. Spreading infectuous diseases is one thing that does tend to be regulated. Remember the hoopla over the lawyer who flew with TB a while back? In my opinion, a person who chooses not to vaccinate his or her children for anything other than a medical reason has chosen not to participate in society and should not be allowed to send their children to publically run facilities like schools.

baltimore aureole:

the obvious solution is to care for sick child at home, rather than expect this care to be provided by a public access day care center.

Yeah, because I'm certain the author has the money to both pay for her child's care and not work...... This is exactly why we should have had a public option. Too bad the idiotic and the ignorant killed it by screaming utter nonsense.

baltimore aureole:

requiring every citizen to be vaccinated for the disease du jour may put your mind at ease ,but it will be a false panacea. hundreds of people actually die each year from the unfortunate genetic inheritance THEY carry - undetected sensitivity to a random vaccine or medicine.

How many polio victims do you know? How many people who have been disfigured from measles? The side effects due to vaccines on a population level are so much less than the effects of the viruses they prevent that to bring it up is simply silly. People who don't vaccinate for reasons other than medical issues are selfish. They shouldn't be given the time of day.

baltimore aureole:

the solution lies not with the inconvenience and risk to others,

So why should these anti-vaccine nutcases get to risk the rest of us?

nowhere did i even imply that.

there are lots of reasons women (like me) enjoy working - a challenging professional environment; intelligent adult conversation during the day; income . . .

do those take precedence over the needs of an immune system compromised child? do i have the right to insist that every stranger my toddler might come in contact with be vaccinated to make it possible for ME to live my child with strangers and enjoy professional development?

i say no - my children are ultimately my responsibility.

the federal government has paid $588 million (so far) for wrongful deaths and disability with JUST ONE vaccine (thimerosol) <link>#

there are dozens and dozens of other websited detailing the tragedy of vaccine susceptibility

not every child "accepts" a vaccine which was intended to help "most" children.

its ridiculous to insist that everyone conform to one mother's stance on universal vaccination, and put their own kids at risk to ease HER mind

because we are a free people and with freedom comes risk, if you want to trade your freedom for security I am sure there is a place for you amoung the neo-cons.

I do have one question for you, is child care covered under the public option too?.........

Hst_Fan:

the simple answer to your question...........because we are a free people and with freedom comes risk,

I beg to disagree. I can't shoot someone. I can't steal someone's stuff. I can't decide that I want to drive on the left side of the road. Certainly we prize our freedom, but there are lines that have been drawn and I doubt anyone other than a radical nutcase disagrees. The question, as always, is where should those lines be drawn? In no other circumstances is a person allowed to continue an action that is dangerous to those around them for no other reason than a philosophical ideal.

Claiming that "we're a free people!!" is simply a cop out that allows a person to avoid thinking about an issue in a constructive manner. Conservatives are just as guilty as liberals when it comes to this particular item, they simply differ in the topics that they feel should sacrosanct.

Hst_Fan:

if you want to trade your freedom for security I am sure there is a place for you amoung the neo-cons.

Yes, it's all very easy to quote some trite phrase coined by Ben Franklin. But, why should I have the freedom to not be vaccinated and thus risk thousands (if not more) of people but not have the freedom to smoke pot or marry another woman? It seems a very silly place to draw a line. Why do you feel people should be allowed to do it presuming that you don't think anarchy is a valid form of governement.

Hst_Fan:

I do have one question for you, is child care covered under the public option too?.........

Personally I think that childcare should be covered under some program, provided the parents involved are either working or going to school. It would lead to increased productivity across the board. But, the "children are a punishment wrought by god for having sex!" folks will never buy it. It's best to work on health care so no one has to die from an easily prevented disease because they are unlucky enough to not have insurance.

baltimore aureole:

the federal government has paid $588 million (so far) for wrongful deaths and disability with JUST ONE vaccine (thimerosol) <link>

Yes, because it was easier than paying millions of dollars to lawyers and then have all the drug companies shy away from ever producing another vaccine.

baltimore aureole:

there are dozens and dozens of other websited detailing the tragedy of vaccine susceptibility

Some kids will react badly, maybe even die. Many, many more would die if we stopped vaccinating. That is a cold, hard fact.

baltimore aureole:

its ridiculous to insist that everyone conform to one mother's stance on universal vaccination, and put their own kids at risk to ease HER mind

No, they would be "put at risk" to lower the risk to every child and person around them. The science is there. Vaccinations aren't done just to make someone feel better..... Diseases like polio were a huge problem. Do we really want to return to that?

Baltimore,

I am sorry but your are again misstating the facts of the situation. Given your civil tone I assume that this is just an oversight on your part.

1. Thimerosal is not a vaccine. It is a preservative used in vaccines to allow them to be distributed in a multi-dose vial. With one exception (some versions of the seasonal influenza vaccine) it has been eliminated from all US vaccines.

2. The total number of vaccine awards for all vaccines between 1990-2004 was $588M for approximately 600 cases. Awards are granted if the preponderence of the evidence suggests a link between the vaccine and the adverse event - this does not mean that a causal link has been established. It is recognized that it is important for potentially harmed individuals to be compensated because being immunized is beneficial for the entire community and so the community should be responsible for the injuries incurred to the small minority of vaccine recipients that become injured.

3. Dozens and dozens of anecdotal reports by biased observers (parents) does not demonstrate anything. By way of example, a few weeks ago a teenager died following receipt of the HPV vaccine. Immediately immunizations with that lot of vaccine were halted as a precaution. Following an autopsy it was determined that the girls death was due to a large undetected tumor in her chest. This story is now circulating on the web as one of the tragedies of vaccines with some people going so far as to say that the autopsy findings were faked by the pharmaceutical industry to cover up a vaccine death. The truth of the matter is that when a large number of people are immunized, by chance another health issue will arise in close temporal relationship to the immunization. That does not mean they were causally related.

4. No one is proposing that everyone should be immunized for the sake of one child. What needs to be considered is that the vast majority of individuals as well as society as a whole are much better off when we have high rates of immunization. Her child is just one tiny example of the consequences of reduced immunization rates.

Baltimore: "...requiring every citizen to be vaccinated for the disease du jour"

Baltimore, do you really truly think that concerns about polio, diphtheria, measles, pertusis are just passing fads? Perhaps you should look each of those up? Also look into how many millions of people have died from small pox, which has now been eradicated thanks to vaccination programs, so now we no longer need to be vaccinated against it....

Research puts the risk of a rare side effect from the flu vac between 1:100,000 and 1:1,000,000. Even at the million level, that's approximately 200 people if 1/2 the population takes the shot, which is the estimate.

The process to dole out money from the Federal Gov't is very time-consuming and strict. If a person dies from a flu shot, the attending physican needs to know that fact and have enough knowledge of the vac and its side effects to make that call.

More frequent is GBS from flu shots, which can paralyze the person. This has been proven and does affect 1000s a year.

first not being vaccinated does not constitute a threat, it consitutes a potential threat. Let's examine other potential threats and perhaps we can determine where the line should be drawn. Schizophrenia, it is know that people with this disorder have a higher tendency to violence then any other mental disorder, so they constitute a potential threat to society. Incurable STDs, there are four of them and of course we know HIV is the worst but all present significat health risks, what restricitons should we put on people who carry these disease. Clearly they represent a potential threat to society, no? It's a slippery slope you tread.

As to the reference to Franklins quote, it was just a reference, I hardly think it trite but vital. And you ask if you should have the freedom to smoke pot or marry antoher woman, indeed you should, or do cocain or marry two woman, it should not be any business of the state. That is what we ar talking about here, not a general touchy feely thing called freedom, but what power the state should have. I would caution, that the state only has one tool init's box to enforce it's power, that is violence, men with guns.

I didn't really ask if you thought it should contain such an option, in you OP you implyed that passing a public option would somehow given relief to the authors plight. My question was how?