Temporarily Suspending Non-Vax'd kids from school
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By KimPossible
  • 1 Post By ange84

Thread: Temporarily Suspending Non-Vax'd kids from school

  1. #1
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,109

    Default Temporarily Suspending Non-Vax'd kids from school

    What do you think? Do you side with these families who lost? Or do you think schools should be able to suspend non-vax'd kids during breakouts of certain diseases. Some of these suspensions are long.

    Sorry that this article is obviously opinionated. I didn't search very hard for a more objective one.

    New York federal judge rules that schools can suspend unvaccinated kids from class during disease outbreaks.

    Anti-vaccination agitators received a huge blow last week when federal Judge William Kuntz of Brooklyn ruled against three families claiming that their religious rights were being violated when schools pulled their unvaccinated children out of class out of fear of disease spreading through the school. The New York Times reports:

    Two of the families in the lawsuit who had received religious exemptions challenged the city?s policy on barring their children, saying it amounted to a violation of their First Amendment right to religious freedom and their 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law, among other claims. Their children had been kept from school when other students had chickenpox, their suit said.
    The third family didn't have a religious exemption in the first place, as the mother involved tried to get a medical exemption first. When that failed, she claimed to have religious objections to vaccination, which called into question her sincerity of religious conviction. However, the issue here is not the acquisition of nonmedical exemptions, which are on the rise across the country in the wake of conspiracy theories about vaccines being dangerous and the supposed coverup of said dangers. The issue is how schools are legally allowed to deal with unvaccinated kids in their populations.

    In his decision, Kuntz cited a 1905 case in which a man was fined for refusing a smallpox vaccine, a case that was instrumental in establishing the government's right to protect the public health, even if it means restraining individual rights to do so. Still, this New York City case demonstrates how difficult it can be for a school to balance its duty to keep kids safe (pulling unvaccinated kids out during disease outbreaks protects their health and keeps them from being vectors for the disease to spread) with a desire to be tolerant of parental belief systems, even when those beliefs don't line up with scientific consensus or other factual realities. It would be better if there were no nonmedical exemptions to begin with, but as long as these exemptions are legal, pulling the kids out periodically is the best the school can do to keep all children safer from disease.

    It's hard to say what this decision means, big picture, for the anti-vaccination movement, since Kuntz didn't touch the right to exemptions. When it comes to public relations, however, it serves to remind anti-vaxxers that there are significant nonmedical consequences to their decisions. Yes, having the school periodically suspend your kid is a pain, in terms of child care, and also not great for his or her education, but there's a way for you to avoid all that: Get your kid vaccinated.

    New York schools are not alone in standing up to anti-vaxx parents. In Ohio, where there is a measles and mumps outbreak, parents were recently warned that unvaccinated kids might have to stay home for 25 days or more. This ruling will hopefully give more schools the fortitude to make the same call.
    Emma 08/31/01
    Aodhan 07/24/03
    Lillian 03/04/05
    Nathalie 07/01/07
    Cecilia Marie 1/10/10


    Photo By Anne Schmidt Photography

  2. #2
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,521

    Default

    As long as exemptions are legal, in my opinion it should not be legal to bar a child from going to school. If the legal paper work is not filled out that is different.

    If you do not want there to be religious exemptions, go through the legal hoops to ban them. This is of course for public schools. Private schools can ban students for whatever reason.

    ~Bonita~

  3. #3
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,468

    Default

    In my state when you sign the exemption you agree that, in the event of an outbreak of any disease for which your child is not vaccinated, your child will not attend school. This is to protect both your own child and others who might be exposed by your child picking up the disease at school. I have no problem with it. It's not a violation of anyone's religious rights, it's protection for everyone including people who can't be vaccinated for valid medical reasons like tiny babies and people with compromised immune systems.
    David Letterman is retiring. Such great memories of watching him over the past thirty-two years!

  4. #4
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,109

    Default

    Forgot i started this thread. I agree with Stacey on this one. I think its an appropriate measure that should be taken if one chooses (for whatever reason) not to vaccinate their child.

    I don't believe its a violation of religious rights either, it is actually a way to afford someone their religious rights....but affording someone their religious rights should never be at the expense of other people's health or safety.

    If someone wants to practice their religion...fine, but then they also better be prepared to be responsible in preventing the spread of these diseases in alternative ways...like staying home.
    mom3girls likes this.

  5. #5
    Posting Addict ange84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    9,071

    Default

    My sons day care has recently advised that if you have not kept up to date immunisation records or have chosen not to vaccinate you will have to stay home if thereis an outbreak. Looks like my son could be the firstto test the new rule for others as he looks like he has chicken pox
    Wendy




  6. #6
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ange84 View Post
    My sons day care has recently advised that if you have not kept up to date immunisation records or have chosen not to vaccinate you will have to stay home if thereis an outbreak. Looks like my son could be the firstto test the new rule for others as he looks like he has chicken pox
    I assume you'd keep him home anyway with chicken pox! No?

    (Poor kid, I hope it passes quickly....)
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  7. #7
    Posting Addict ange84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    9,071

    Default

    Yes hehas to stay home, but if it does turn out to be chicken pox then they will have to ask all non vaxed kids to stay home
    freddieflounder101 likes this.
    Wendy




+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions