The argument against religious and "philosophical" vaccination exemptions

Kudos to Globe and Mail health columnist André Picard for once again telling it like it is, this time regarding the morality of vaccinations.

The column begins by noting that first California then New York have already passed laws over the last ten years disallowing parents from refusing vaccinations for their kids on so-called religious or philosophical grounds (an exemption on medical grounds remains for those with severe allergies to some ingredients of vaccines, or severe immune deficiencies). 

I had no idea this had been pushed through - in 2015 and 2019 respectively - and I can imagine it was pretty contentious. Both states, let it be said, were reacting to major measles outbreaks, mainly among religious (Jewish) communities.

Well, Ontario is currently going through its worst measles outbreak in three decades, with its origins in the vaccine-resistant Mennonite community. Isn't it time Ontario passed such a law, along with a determined educational effort to win over the vaccine-hesitant?

As Mr. Picard explains, it is currently way too easy to claim an exemption from childhood vaccinations on religious or "philosophical" grounds. Resistance to vaccinations is not a tenet of any major religion; religious anti-vaxxers are just making their own interpretations of religious beliefs, usually something along the lines of they feel it interrupts the divine plan for a person's life, or it is interfering with God's will in some ill-defined way. The "philosophical" objection is even more woolly, usually to do with "parental rights" to decide what is best for their own children.

Freedom of religion is one thing, but it was never meant to exempt people from their societal obligations, such as protecting the health and well-being of children (their own and others'). As has been codified in major court cases, the state cannot tell you what to think, but it can tell you what do, especially where it involves the greater good of society. Religionists and libertarians hate that, but it's true. 

Personal beliefs do not supersede the public good or the laws of the land. Just as we don't allow patents to beat their children, or marry them off as minors, and just as we insist on seat belts in cars to save lives (remember the fuss when that was instituted?), we should not be allowing those with anti-science views to harm others. We should not be mollifying the selfish and the self-righteous at the expense of the general populace, as Mr. Picard notes.