Editorial Board, The Washington Post;
"The argument that states should permit only narrowly defined religious objections to vaccination hinges on the idea of herd immunity,
which prevents contagious diseases from spreading if a high enough
proportion of a community is vaccinated. This is why vaccination
requirements are linked to a child’s ability to attend school. Parents’
right to choose what happens to their own children is outweighed by the
state’s interest in protecting all children.
Tetanus, while not itself infectious, is included in vaccination requirements because the shot immunizing against it also protects recipients from whooping cough and diphtheria. But the Oregon case is a reminder that the vaccination controversy is not only about whether parents have a right to endanger other people’s children. It is also about whether they have a right to endanger their own. The six-figure cost in Oregon is startling enough. The cost to the 6-year-old boy, who could barely walk when he was transferred out of the ICU, is tremendous...
Parents have substantial leeway to weigh risk as they see fit — but when does a parent’s right to be irresponsible run up against a child’s right not to contract a life-threatening illness?"
