Salmon D A, Siegel A W
Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Pubic Health, 615 N Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Public Health Rep. 2001 Jul-Aug;116(4):289-95. doi: 10.1093/phr/116.4.289.
All jurisdictions in the US require proof of vaccination for school entrance. Most states permit non-medical exemptions. Public health officials must balance the rights of individuals to choose whether or not to vaccinate their children with the individual and societal risks associated with choosing not to vaccinate (i.e., claiming an exemption). To assist the public health community in optimally reaching this balance, this analysis examines the constitutional basis of non-medical exemptions and examines policies governing conscientious objection to conscription as a possible model. The jurisprudence that the US Supreme Court has developed in cases in which religious beliefs conflict with public or state interests suggests that mandatory immunization against dangerous diseases does not violate the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Accordingly, states do not have a constitutional obligation to enact religious exemptions. Applying the model of conscientious objectors to conscription suggests that if states choose to offer nonmedical exemptions, they may be able to optimally balance individual freedoms with public good by considering the sincerity of beliefs and requiring parents considering exemptions to attend individual educational counseling.
美国所有司法管辖区都要求入学时提供疫苗接种证明。大多数州允许非医疗豁免。公共卫生官员必须在个人选择是否为子女接种疫苗的权利与不接种疫苗(即申请豁免)所带来的个人和社会风险之间取得平衡。为协助公共卫生界最佳地实现这一平衡,本分析审视了非医疗豁免的宪法基础,并研究了作为一种可能模式的关于出于良心拒服兵役的政策。美国最高法院在宗教信仰与公共或国家利益冲突的案件中所形成的判例法表明,针对危险疾病的强制免疫并不侵犯第一修正案所规定的宗教自由行使权。因此,各州没有宪法义务制定宗教豁免条款。将出于良心拒服兵役者的模式应用于此表明,如果各州选择提供非医疗豁免,它们或许能够通过考虑信仰的真诚度并要求考虑申请豁免的家长参加个人教育咨询,来最佳地平衡个人自由与公共利益。