Vaccine Exemptions and the Church-State Problem.

Q3 Medicine Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2017-01-01
Dena S Davis
{"title":"Vaccine Exemptions and the Church-State Problem.","authors":"Dena S Davis","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>All of the 50 states of the United States have laws governing childhood vaccinations; 48 allow for religious exemptions, while 19 also offer exemptions based on some sort of personal philosophy. Recent disease outbreaks have caused these states to reconsider philosophical exemptions. However, we cannot, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, give preference to religion by creating religious exemptions only. The Constitution requires states to put religious and nonreligious claims on equal footing. Given the ubiquity of nonreligious objections to vaccination, I conclude that the best response is to remove all exemptions, as two states have already done. But removing exemptions should not end our concern for children. Removing exemptions only bars children from public schools; it still leaves them unvaccinated, a danger to others, and reliant on whatever nonpublic schooling is available. If public school attendance is not enough of an incentive for vaccine reluctant parents, perhaps we should look into stronger measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"250-254"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

All of the 50 states of the United States have laws governing childhood vaccinations; 48 allow for religious exemptions, while 19 also offer exemptions based on some sort of personal philosophy. Recent disease outbreaks have caused these states to reconsider philosophical exemptions. However, we cannot, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, give preference to religion by creating religious exemptions only. The Constitution requires states to put religious and nonreligious claims on equal footing. Given the ubiquity of nonreligious objections to vaccination, I conclude that the best response is to remove all exemptions, as two states have already done. But removing exemptions should not end our concern for children. Removing exemptions only bars children from public schools; it still leaves them unvaccinated, a danger to others, and reliant on whatever nonpublic schooling is available. If public school attendance is not enough of an incentive for vaccine reluctant parents, perhaps we should look into stronger measures.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
疫苗豁免和教会-国家问题。
美国所有50个州都有关于儿童接种疫苗的法律;48个州允许宗教豁免,而19个州也提供基于某种个人哲学的豁免。最近的疾病爆发使这些州重新考虑哲学上的豁免。然而,根据美国宪法,我们不能仅仅通过创造宗教豁免来给予宗教优先权。宪法要求各州平等对待宗教和非宗教诉求。鉴于非宗教人士普遍反对接种疫苗,我的结论是,最好的应对措施是取消所有豁免,就像两个州已经做的那样。但是取消豁免不应该结束我们对儿童的关注。取消豁免只会阻止孩子进入公立学校;这仍然使他们没有接种疫苗,对他人构成威胁,并且依赖于任何可以获得的非公立学校。如果公立学校的入学率不足以激励不愿接种疫苗的父母,也许我们应该研究更强有力的措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Ethics
Journal of Clinical Ethics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Ethics is written for and by physicians, nurses, attorneys, clergy, ethicists, and others whose decisions directly affect patients. More than 70 percent of the articles are authored or co-authored by physicians. JCE is a double-blinded, peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and other indexes.
期刊最新文献
Dual Advocates in Deceased Organ Donation: The Potential for Moral Distress in Organ Procurement Organization Staff. Duty to Family: Ethical Considerations in the Resuscitation Bay. Home Birth in the United States: An Evidence-Based Ethical Analysis. How Should We Allocate Divisible Resources? An Overlooked Question. New Ways to Help Patients Worst Off.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1