On October 16, 2008 more than 300 parents and children marched outside of the New Jersey statehouse in protest.   The rally was in response to a recent change in New Jersey law requiring that babies and children in day care receive mandatory flu vaccines.  The change was initiated because of an outbreak of measles in the 1990’s that killed several children.  Could this be chalked up to an ideal of better safe than sorry, or is there more to the story?  While addressing the crowd, Louise Kuo Habakus, a member of the New Jersey Coalition for Vaccination Choice asked, “Are you the one with the courage to lead us through this health care crisis?  If so, give us vaccination choice!”  This is but one example of a nation-wide issue that affects us all.

      The jurisdiction of state and local governments to require vaccinations dates back to 1905, when the United States Supreme Court heard Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The Court exclaimed in ruling that, “persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State.” With these words, the Court stated the basic sacrifice of civilization: an individual must give up some personal freedom in exchange for the benefits of being in a civilized society.  Perhaps this is what is meant by “freedom isn’t free?”

     Over 100 years later, as government and the pharmaceutical industries have grown, can we trust those in charge to be making decisions on behalf of our better welfare?  Do we really know enough about the effects of vaccinations to deem them safe?  Are children in developed nations even at risk for certain infectious diseases, like hepatitis, polio, measles, or mumps?  Is it necessary to administer these vaccines at such an early age when a child’s immune system is at a crucial stage in its development?  These are all questions that need to be answered in order to better make an informed choice for ourselves, our families, and especially our children.  For each individual, the risk of an adverse reaction to a particular vaccine is not known (although it is thought to be as high as 4 per 1,000).  Are these odds you’re willing to take with your child’s life?        

     Public policy surrounding vaccines is flawed.  Within the governing agencies that pass legislation, there is conflict of interest.  The studies that are conducted by the pharmaceutical companies are inadequate and biased.  Serious adverse reactions, such as a direct link to autism in the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine are all but ignored by the NIH and others in public health.  Studies are dismissed and deemed inconsequential until proven otherwise.  Should we leave the decision up to these inadequate, and often corrupt bureaucracy’s to determine what is the proper and safe thing to do with our bodies?  Would we agree to these mandates if we were fully aware of just exactly what is in the vaccine?  Who among us would knowing inject ourselves with washed sheep RBC’s (in the DPT vaccine), or formaldehyde, the chief agent in embalming fluid (contained in many vaccines)?   When it comes to these questions surrounding vaccinations, we argue that it is best to gather all of the information possible and make an informed decision: after all, you will have to live with the outcome.