A thoughtful comment was sent to us recently by Kathleen Hoke Dachille, an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Law. Professor Dachille wrote she agreed with our call to eliminate the philosophical belief exemption for mandatory childhood vaccines, but went on to say:
I think that some states adopted the standard because the religious exemption issue created too many sticky First Amendment issues — when is a religion a religion; how do we know the exemptor (or his parent) actual practices that religion in a manner than requires exemption?
So my question to you is whether you believe that the religious exemption should also be eliminated. I fear if that exemption is not also eliminated, then the personal/philosophical exemptors will turn to these so-called religions that form online and purportedly believe that vaccines are immoral or against God’s will. And states will be faced with blanket acceptance of religious exemption requests (which basically happens in most states now) or lots of litigation on the First Amendment issue. So I think the call should be for the elimination of all but the medical exemption.
Interestingly, my law students and I recently engaged in this discussion in class and there were a lot of serious arguments made and also a lot of emotions displayed.
Dr. Ross responded:
I believe the philosophical exemption is a cover for those who fear vaccines, and since this fear is baseless, and is dangerous for those in the vicinity of those exempted as well as for those who avoid the vaccine, it should be eliminated. I would not force those whose religious beliefs prevent them from accepting vaccination to violate those beliefs. I certainly understand the concerns of Prof. Dachille, and even agree with them to some extent. But the solution to those concerns is not to set goals which are unattainable, as the elimination of the religious exemption would I suspect be, nor to generate controversy and anger whose effect would be to impede the attainment of the desired goal: elimination of the philosophical exemption. Should doctors force Jehovah's Witnesses to accept a blood transfusion, even to save a life? I don't think so.
Let's take it one step at a time. After the superficial philosophical exemption is removed, some may flee to the harbor of religious exemption, some pseudo-religions may spring up to accommodate them. Those issues will have to be dealt with in time. Not now.
