Opinion: Editor gets it wrong regarding vaccines, SB 277
I wish to respond to the column last week from editor Kevin MacMillan entitled “We shouldn’t limit the ability to choose.”
Specifically, I am referencing SB 277, which I wrote about a few weeks ago. We all are for free choice, but I think we all know that societal good sometimes overrides our choices.
The most egregious example may be the choice to harm when wronged. Thus, laws are passed. To quote the vulcan Spock, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
You state you couldn’t care less if someone is for or against vaccines, just like you couldn’t care less if you eat meat or don’t.
Eating meat does not harm or infringe on the rights of another human, but non-vaccination does. I doubt you would feel the same if someone gives you measles and lands you in the hospital when that could be prevented.
Be aware the current version of the bill that just passed another committee allows choice. If you wish to home school your child, you can avoid vaccination.
It is a compromise on the original bill, and would not avoid a Disneyland-like outbreak unless most of those were public schooled. It at least is a step in the right direction for most of us in the health care field.
Lastly, if this bill does not pass or people continue to battle good medical evidence with ill founded beliefs, I feel other remedies should be investigated.
I have stated these vaccines are cost-effective; therefore all of us pay more for insurance and medical care to cover those who are sick from vaccinatable diseases.
Non-vaccinators should pay more.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that during outbreaks, vaccines can be mandated with the rare medical exception. Otherwise, you need to be quarantined.
Chris Arth, MD