Two probable Presidential candidates (Christie and Paul) came out today advocating parental choice in whether to have children vaccinated against measles and other diseases. Christie soon backtracked, but Paul remains adamant. This idea of parental choice is one I hear often. Let’s take a look at it.
First, remember that the controversy over vaccinations began many years ago, as the result of a report–since discredited as unscientific and inaccurate–and a claim by a researcher–since exposed as as self-serving and fudging the data. The scientific world totally denies Rand Paul’s absurd statement that vaccines cause mental illness or any other condition.
Back to parental choice. The choice not to vaccinate a child is a choice to put him in danger of being one out of the nine babies out of ten in a room exposed to measles to catch that disease and possibly suffer resulting hearing loss, deafness, pneumonia, encephalitis, or even death.
Parents don’t have a legal choice to beat their children, starve them, lock them in a closet, or leave them alone for several days. That’s called “child abuse” or “child endangerment.” Refusing to provide a child with proven protection against a potentially debilitating disease–how is that “choice” rather than “child abuse/endangerment?”