4/2/2015 UPDATE: the following was written by an attendee who wishes to remain anonymous: (link)
Tuesday, March 31, 2015 – UVM – Med Ed 200 @noon – Event Info
What sort of debate is a non-debate?
Two very pro-mandatory vaccine supporters in one room lecturing med students… where is the debate going to happen? On the picket line in the parking lot?
Bob Macauley: “I believe that parents should be free to decide” (but) “objecting parents” should “not be able to imperil other children” by “sending their unimmunized children to school.”
Rebecca Bell: “The good news is that vaccines have been widely studied and we have lots of data showing they are safe and effective. The bad news is that there is a lot of scary and inaccurate information about vaccines on the internet. With this kind of misinformation out there, how do parents find answers to their questions?”
Are medical ethics changing in Vermont?
Moral coercion should not be used to gain compliance in what should be a voluntary medical procedure. Vaccines should be a personal choice. Vermont law, thankfully guarantees that personal choice. Respect for autonomy is the basis for informed consent. By judging morals, you intrude upon the patient autonomy and the private medical decisions of individuals and parents on what happens to their bodies or their children.
Proponents assert that children who are unvaccinated “not only put themselves at risk for vaccine-preventable diseases but they increase the risk to others.”
…however, if you believe vaccination will prevent disease, and you have your child vaccinated, then according to your belief your child has nothing to worry about. And the immunocompromised should be aware that vaccinated people can carry and transmit whooping cough, live influenza vaccine virus, live measles virus, live mumps virus, live rubella virus, live oral polio vaccine, live oral rotavirus vaccine…; unvaccinated people who did not intentionally infect themselves are far less a health risk to those with immune systems that are not functioning.