That New York Times piece on parents who don’t vaccinate their children has sparked off something of a debate in the high level blogosphere.

Here’s Michelle Malkin defending her decision not to vaccinate herown children (with some vaccines that is).

Instapundit responds.

And a little older, but explaining why the autism/vaccine connection refuses to go away. Overlawyered and Respectful Insolence.

Of all of the various things being said this is the one that I wholeheartedly agree with (it’s an email to Malkin):

1) Vaccines that tend to benefit the patient with unproven or small benefit to the community, such as the cervical cancer vaccine and chickenpox.

2) Vaccines where the patient benefits but there is a great benefit for society, such as polio and measles vaccines.

If the illness is generally not serious, such as chickenpox, or unlikely to occur in a specific population, such as hepatitis B, then if you are confident that your child is low risk, I see no problem in withholding the vaccine. The cervical cancer vaccine has other moral and ethical considerations and since it is not proven to help society as a whole, I have no problem with withholding it from your child.

However, measles and polio (and smallpox in the past) are such horrible diseases, and the vaccines have made major impacts on the health of our country, that these vaccines should not be withheld except in special circumstances. Even a small unvaccinated subpopulation in a community could lead to outbreaks, as occurred in Iowa with mumps, when religious sects had not been vaccinated. For measles, rubella, polio, and a few others, I would agree with the Instapundit that withholding the vaccine from children (except in special circumstances) would be wrong.

Best Regards,

Harold Oster
Medina, MN

I agree, when we’re talking about the health of the individual child then the parents wishes should indeed be paramount. When we’re talking about the public health consequences of a possible epidemic, and the value of vaccination in preventing such, then those public health benefits trump the rights of the parents.

Yes, you do indeed have the right to decide what is right for your child. But no, you do not have the right to put others at risk.