Professor Conrad Weiler can remember a time, while he was growing up, when everyone was petrified by the idea of polio. It was summer – pools closed, children did not play outside. The public lived in fear of contracting the debilitating illness, and many did. When the vaccine for the disease came out, he said it “felt like a miracle.”
No American millennial has experienced the anxiety that Weiler, a political science instructor at Temple, witnessed and felt at a young age. This, and the eradication of many other infectious diseases, is all thanks to the sophistication of today’s science of medicine – of our ability to vaccinate.
America is a country that upholds individual freedoms. This ideal is seemingly the only valid argument presented by those critics of vaccination, whose voices have surfaced in a recent vaccination debate. The concept of a debate on the topic already seems ludicrous, given the established scientific evidence that there is no clear link between vaccination and autism.
Instead of speculating and perpetuating irrational fears surrounding medicine, Americans need to consider the facts. We know that vaccination prevents diseases like measles, which the Center for Disease Control and Prevention declared eradicated in America in 2000 but has since seen outbreaks in 2014-15 in areas like California. We know that people are protected by a medical phenomenon called “herd immunity,” meaning that if at least 95 percent of the population is vaccinated, a disease outbreak is, for all intents and purposes, impossible.
Perhaps most importantly, given the recent flurry of attention to vaccination, is that we know there are some people with weakened immune systems who cannot be vaccinated due to their compromised health. Those are people – children, often – with leukemia and other cancers, or autoimmune diseases.
That’s why, as Weiler said, the topic of vaccination “should be much less political than it is.”
Since there is no federal law mandating that parents vaccinate their children, Weiler reviewed state-level statutes on vaccination with his American State and Local Politics course once he noticed the current attention to the topic. According to the National Vaccine Information Center, many allow for religious and personal exemptions, along with medical – 48 states allow for religious exemptions and 17 allow for “philosophical, conscientious or personal belief exemptions.” The upsetting irony of those allowances is that medical exemptions require proof from a doctor. Religious and personal reasons only require the beliefs to be “sincerely held.”
The only states that do not allow for religious exemptions are Mississippi and West Virginia – unsurprisingly, the CDC reported 99.7 percent of Mississippi schoolchildren were MMR vaccinated in 2014. And no outbreaks of measles in that state have circulated national media channels.
Dr. Thomas Fekete, Temple University Hospital’s Infectious Diseases section chief, said those questioning the safety of vaccination seem to have “an exaggerated fear of risk” based on a feeling, not an informed opinion. While he said he does not want to disrespect anyone’s personal decisions, he thinks healthy people “owe [vaccination] to other people as well as ourselves,” and as far as I’m concerned, that means regardless of their religion or personal misgivings.
It is important to let people think for themselves and make their own choices. But are people who choose to exempt themselves from vaccination for non-medical reasons truly thinking? Or are they acting upon a feeling, like Fekete suggested? It certainly seems to be the latter. When the health of our country’s children is a major component, don’t we all, as citizens, have an obligation to make a logical decision that protects our younger generation?
In a period of dramatic political polarization in this country, it’s unfortunately not surprising that figures like Chris Christie and Rand Paul have interjected their support of individual freedoms into a topic that, frankly, has no business being divided into right- and left-wing arguments. It is socially irresponsible to disregard the safety of those who cannot be vaccinated, even if they would like to be. We have to, as Fekete said, “look at the bigger picture.” That’s not an anti-American idea. If we can unite as a nation in the interest of national security during times of war and conflict, why can’t we come to a consensus that vaccination is defending our national health?
On any college campus, where students live in close quarters in university residence halls, the value of vaccination is clear. Imagine the chaos and panic on Main Campus if Morgan Hall erupted with measles because no students were vaccinated – I’d rather not.
Sometimes, Weiler said, “there are certain public goods that cannot be provided by individuals on their own free will,” meaning, in the case of vaccination, the public good of protection from infectious diseases will deteriorate if it is left up to each individual to contribute to majority vaccination. Though I would argue in its defense, perhaps ending religious and personal exemptions is extreme. Regardless of whether any new laws are enacted, though, any naysayers should stop considering vaccination to be a political choice and consider it a citizen responsibility. We, as Americans, are lucky to have the freedoms we do. But those freedoms will prove useless unless we utilize them responsibly, not selfishly.
Erin Edinger-Turoff can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org or on Twitter @erinJustineET
Profesa Conrad Weiler anakumbuka wakati alipokuwa akikua, wakati kila mtu alikuwa na hofu ya polio. Ilikuwa majira ya kiangazi <unk> vidimbwi vilikuwa vimefungwa, watoto hawakucheza nje. Watu waliishi kwa hofu ya kupatwa na ugonjwa huo wenye kudhoofisha, na wengi walipatwa. "Wakati chanjo ya ugonjwa huo ilipotolewa, alisema, ""Ilikuwa kama muujiza"" - hakuna mtu wa kizazi cha millennial wa Marekani aliyepata wasiwasi ambao Weiler, mwalimu wa sayansi ya siasa katika Temple, alishuhudia na kuhisi akiwa mchanga." Hii, na kuondolewa kwa magonjwa mengine mengi ya kuambukiza, ni shukrani zote kwa utaalam wa sayansi ya leo ya dawa - ya uwezo wetu wa chanjo. Marekani ni nchi inayoshikilia uhuru wa mtu binafsi. Hii inaonekana kuwa hoja pekee halali iliyotolewa na wakosoaji wa chanjo, ambao sauti zao zimetokea katika mjadala wa hivi karibuni wa chanjo. """Wazo la mjadala juu ya mada hii tayari linaonekana kuwa la kipumbavu, kwa kuzingatia ushahidi wa kisayansi ulioanzishwa kwamba hakuna uhusiano dhahiri kati ya chanjo na ugonjwa wa akili." Badala ya kukisia na kuendeleza hofu zisizo za akili zinazozunguka dawa, Wamarekani wanahitaji kuzingatia ukweli. "Hii ni kwa sababu chanjo ya ugonjwa wa surua, ambao ilitangazwa kuwa ""imezimwa"" na Kituo cha Kudhibiti na Kuzuia Magonjwa nchini Marekani mwaka 2000, imeanza kuenea katika maeneo ya Amerika ya Kusini na Amerika ya Kusini." "Watu wanaokinga na ugonjwa huo wanajulikana kama ""kinga ya kundi,"" ambayo inamaanisha kwamba ikiwa angalau asilimia 95 ya watu wamepewa chanjo, kuzuka kwa ugonjwa ni, kwa makusudi na madhumuni yote, haiwezekani." "Huenda jambo muhimu zaidi, kutokana na msukosuko wa hivi karibuni wa umakini wa chanjo, ni kwamba tunajua kuna watu wengine wenye mifumo ya kinga iliyodhoofika ambao hawawezi kupigwa chanjo kwa sababu ya afya yao iliyoharibiwa. """ Hizo ni watu - watoto, mara nyingi - wenye leukemia na kansa nyingine, au magonjwa ya kinga ya mwili. "Kwa hiyo, kama vile Weiler alisema, mada ya chanjo ""inapaswa kuwa chini sana ya kisiasa kuliko ilivyo.""Kwa kuwa hakuna sheria ya shirikisho inayotoa amri kwamba wazazi wa chanjo watoto wao, Weiler alitafakari sheria za ngazi ya serikali juu ya chanjo na kozi yake ya Marekani ya Jimbo na Siasa za Mitaa mara tu alipogundua umakini wa sasa kwa mada hiyo." Kulingana na Kituo cha Kitaifa cha Habari ya Chanjo, wengi huruhusu msamaha wa kidini na wa kibinafsi, pamoja na matibabu - majimbo 48 huruhusu msamaha wa kidini na 17 huruhusu msamaha wa falsafa, dhamiri au imani ya kibinafsi - na jambo la kushangaza la msamaha huo ni kwamba msamaha wa matibabu unahitaji uthibitisho kutoka kwa daktari. "Kwa sababu za kidini na za kibinafsi, imani inahitaji tu ""kufanyika kwa dhati.""Jimbo pekee ambalo haliruhusu msamaha wa kidini ni Mississippi na West Virginia. ""Kwa kushangaza, CDC iliripoti asilimia 99.7 ya watoto wa shule ya Mississippi walipewa chanjo ya MMR mnamo 2014." Na hakuna milipuko ya surua katika jimbo hilo ambayo imesambazwa kwenye vituo vya habari vya kitaifa. Daktari Thomas Fekete, mkuu wa idara ya magonjwa ya kuambukiza ya Hospitali ya Chuo Kikuu cha Temple, alisema wale wanaotilia shaka usalama wa chanjo wanaonekana kuwa na "hofu ya kupita kiasi ya hatari" kulingana na hisia, sio maoni ya habari. "Wakati alisema hataki kukosa heshima kwa maamuzi ya kibinafsi ya mtu yeyote, anafikiri watu wenye afya ""wanalazimika [kuchanja] kwa watu wengine na sisi wenyewe"" na kwa kadiri ninavyojali, hiyo inamaanisha bila kujali dini yao au wasiwasi wa kibinafsi." Ni muhimu kuwaacha watu wajifikirie wenyewe na kufanya uchaguzi wao wenyewe. Lakini je, watu wanaochagua kujiondoa kwenye chanjo kwa sababu zisizo za kitiba wanafikiria kweli? Au je, wanafanya mambo kwa kutegemea hisia, kama vile Fekete alivyosema? Yaonekana ni jambo la pili. Wakati afya ya watoto wa nchi yetu ni sehemu kubwa, je, sisi sote, kama raia, hatuna wajibu wa kufanya uamuzi wa kimantiki ambao unalinda kizazi chetu cha vijana? Katika kipindi cha polarization ya kisiasa ya kuvutia katika nchi hii, ni bahati mbaya si ya kushangaza kwamba takwimu kama Chris Christie na Rand Paul wameingilia msaada wao wa uhuru wa mtu binafsi katika mada ambayo, waziwazi, haina biashara kugawanywa katika hoja za kulia na kushoto. Ni jambo lisilo la wajibu kutojali usalama wa wale ambao hawawezi kupigwa chanjo, hata kama wangependa kupigwa. Lazima, kama Fekete alivyosema, "tuangalie picha kubwa". Hiyo si wazo la kupinga Marekani. """Ikiwa tunaweza kuungana kama taifa kwa maslahi ya usalama wa kitaifa wakati wa vita na migogoro, kwa nini hatuwezi kufikia makubaliano kwamba chanjo inalinda afya yetu ya kitaifa?""" Katika chuo kikuu chochote, ambapo wanafunzi wanaishi katika vyumba vya makazi, thamani ya chanjo ni wazi. Fikiria machafuko na hofu katika Chuo Kikuu kama Morgan Hall ilipuka na surua kwa sababu hakuna wanafunzi waliopigwa chanjo <unk> Ningependa si. "Wakati mwingine, Weiler alisema, ""kuna bidhaa fulani za umma ambazo haziwezi kutolewa na watu binafsi kwa hiari yao,"" ikimaanisha, katika kesi ya chanjo, faida ya umma ya ulinzi dhidi ya magonjwa ya kuambukiza itazidi kuwa mbaya ikiwa itaachwa kwa kila mtu kuchangia chanjo ya wengi." Ingawa ningependa kuitetea, labda kukomesha msamaha wa kidini na wa kibinafsi ni jambo la kupita kiasi. "Hata hivyo, bila kujali kama sheria mpya zitatolewa au la, ""watu wanaopinga"" wanapaswa kuacha kuzingatia chanjo kuwa chaguo la kisiasa na kuiona kuwa jukumu la raia." Sisi kama Wamarekani tuna bahati kuwa na uhuru kama huu. Lakini uhuru huo utakuwa wa bure isipokuwa tuutumie kwa uwajibikaji, si kwa ubinafsi. Erin Edinger-Turoff anaweza kufikiwa katika firstname.lastname@example.org au kwenye Twitter @erinJustineET