ed052809

On the homepage

Scanners

Full-body scanners headed for MSP

Out There

Gas lines

10 years later, same fire, anger

Club Outdoors

Behind closed doors

Home | Opinion Exchange | Editorials

Editorial: New perspective for vaccine 'refusers'

Hauser case spotlights dangers of putting beliefs above facts.

Last update: May 27, 2009 - 8:37 PM

Featured comment

Individual choice does not apply in cases with minors.

There is a lot of really fuzzy reasoning going on here, and the common thread is HUBRIS. It's amazing how many arrogant people are out … read more there that think a few hours surfing the internet replaces a medical education, peer reviewed research, and intense epidemiological research. This narcissistic, arrogant, bloated self regard that allows lay people to make decisions they are poorly prepared to make is NOT in the interest of their children. Of course, everyone loves their children, but your ARROGANCE is potentially causing your children harm. Those of you who feel comfortable overriding their doctors opinion...perhaps you'd also like to set your own childrens broken bones, remove their ruptured appendices, and perhaps do their dental work? No? Not really a doctor? Then don't freaking pretend to be one, just because it's easy to do cheesy internet research and form an "opinion". Most of the posts here are riddled with logical flaws in reasoning, crappy statistics, conspiracy theories, and unsupported references to the overwhelming harm that vaccines cause. The medical consensus is unanimous. Vaccines save millions of lives. Not vaccinating your children as a general rule is dangerous to your children, as well as ALL of society. It is irresponsible and stupid. Frankly, I'm not interested in changing the minds of any nut-job conspiracy theorists, or "weekend warrior doctors". On any issue, there will be always be a fringe that is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Their opinions should be ignored, marginalized, and if a threat to others, outlawed. Oh, and that is not an abridgement on "individual choice"...you are not choosing for yourself, but for ANOTHER individual, a minor. You do not have a legal right to make healthcare decisions that poorly impact your children because you think you know more then trained professionals. One of the jobs of society is to protect children from bad parenting, and not vaccinating your children is BAD PARENTING. I don't care what your intentions are. If this post seems incendiary, well it's meant to be. You fools are putting your childrens lives and others lives at risk by your arrogance and poor judgement. I could care less about hurting feelings, when your actions could cost lives.

Close comment

39 comments | See all
Hide reader comments

Print this story

Follow Opinion Exchange on Twitter

A FEARED DISEASE

Pertussis (whooping cough) deserves its reputation as one of the most feared childhood diseases. During the 1920s and 1930s, there were on average more than 160,000 annual cases of this highly contagious bacterial disease, and more than 5,000 deaths a year. By 1976, case reports of pertussis had been reduced by 99 percent. The disease has been on the increase since then. Infants less than a year old are more likely to become seriously ill from pertussis and develop complications, a critical reason the vaccine protection is needed early in life.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

More from Editorials

At first glance, there seems little in common between Danny Hauser's Minnesota family and a group of Colorado parents causing concern in a sobering recent medical journal article.

The Hausers, who made headlines in refusing chemotherapy for their cancer-stricken 13-year-old, eke out a living with their seven other children on a farm near Sleepy Eye. The Colorado parents needed only routine care for their children and tended to come from metro neighborhoods indicating a "higher socioeconomic status,'' according to the study published in June's issue of Pediatrics.

Strikingly different circumstances, yet both the Hausers and the Colorado parents essentially followed the same decisionmaking process when it came to their kids' medical care. However well-intentioned, they cast aside science and shunned proven lifesaving traditional medical treatments, needlessly jeopardizing young lives. The Hausers rejected drugs to attack Danny's tumor. The Colorado parents rejected basic childhood immunizations, putting their children and others at risk of diseases that have filled cemeteries with too many tiny coffins throughout history.

Thankfully, Danny's parents have reconsidered, and it now appears he'll get the cancer-fighting drugs he needs. But across the nation, increasing numbers of parents continue to recklessly reject childhood vaccines. It's a dangerous trend, one fueled by Internet quacks and irresponsible antivaccine crusaders. Among the worst is former game show hostess and centerfold Jenny McCarthy.

Minnesota parents aren't immune. The state Department of Health estimates the number of parents exercising their right to opt out of school vaccine requirements has doubled over the past decade. That translates to between 2 and 3 percent of state school-aged children who may not be protected against diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), tetanus, measles, haemophilus influenzae type B and other potentially deadly diseases.

The study reported in Pediatrics is considered one of the most definitive to date because it's the first to use electronic medical records to document the risk of refusing immunizations. Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, it focused on pertussis and tracked kids aged 2 months to 18 years who were enrolled in Kaiser Permanente of Colorado, a large Denver-based health plan. The results were shocking: Kids whose parents refused vaccinations were 23 times more likely to get pertussis than kids who got the shots. It's a conclusion that undercuts a reason parents commonly give in declining vaccinations: that the disease's rarity means their child won't contract it.

Researchers didn't document the Colorado parents' reasons for rejecting vaccines, but made clear that this group (called the "refusers") had the resources to make informed decisions but chose not to.

The reality is that the pathogens causing these diseases are still around; vaccines simply keep them at bay. Minnesotans had another powerful reminder of that last year, when an unusual outbreak of five Haemophilus influenzae type B cases occurred in Minnesota. Three of the children had not been vaccinated; one died.

Those who decline to immunize kids are making the same decision as the Hausers, putting beliefs above medical facts. The Sleepy Eye farm couple are now doing right by their son. We hope that vaccine "refusers" who followed Danny's plight will look at their own stance in a new light and give their children the medical care they deserve.

Recent Editorials stories

Editorial: Make the right choice for St. Paul - May 27, 2009

Editorial: Make the right choice for St. Paul - Capital city schools need a leader who will get the job done. More

Comment on this story | Read all 39 comments | Hide reader comments

About Opinion Exchange

Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.

Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS