Pierik Roland
Paul Scholten Centre for Jurisprudence, Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ethnicities. 2017 Apr;17(2):220-241. doi: 10.1177/1468796817692629. Epub 2017 Mar 9.
This paper analyses exemptions to general law through the prism of vaccine waivers in the United States. All US states legally require the vaccination of children prior to school or daycare entry; however, this obligation is accompanied with a system of medical, religious, and/or philosophical exemptions. Nonmedical exemptions became subject of discussion after the 2015 Disneyland measles outbreak in California, which unequivocally brought to light what had been brewing below the surface for a while: a slow but steady decline in vaccination rates in Western societies, resulting in the reoccurrence of measles outbreaks. This can be traced back to an increasing public questioning of vaccines by a growing anti-vaccination movement. In reaction to the outbreak and the public outrage it generated, several states proposed-and some already passed-bills to eliminate nonmedical exemptions. I analyze two questions. First, can legal exemptions from mandatory childhood vaccination schemes for parents who are opposed to vaccination (still) be justified? Second, should legal exemptions be limited to religious objections to vaccination, or should they also be granted to secular objections? Although the argument in the paper starts from the example of the US, it seeks to provide a more general philosophical reflection on the question of exemptions from mandatory childhood vaccination.
本文通过美国疫苗豁免的视角分析了普通法的豁免情况。美国所有州都在法律上要求儿童在入学或进入日托机构前接种疫苗；然而，这一义务伴随着一套医疗、宗教和/或哲学豁免体系。2015年加利福尼亚州迪士尼乐园麻疹疫情爆发后，非医疗豁免成为了讨论的主题，这一疫情明确揭示了一段时间以来表面之下一直在酝酿的情况：西方社会的疫苗接种率在缓慢但稳步下降，导致麻疹疫情再次出现。这可以追溯到反疫苗运动的不断壮大，公众对疫苗的质疑日益增加。针对此次疫情及其引发的公众愤怒，几个州提出了——有些州已经通过了——消除非医疗豁免的法案。我分析两个问题。第一，对于反对接种疫苗的父母，强制儿童疫苗接种计划的法律豁免（现在）是否仍然合理？第二，法律豁免是否应仅限于对疫苗接种的宗教反对，还是也应给予世俗反对？尽管本文的论证从美国的例子出发，但它旨在对强制儿童疫苗接种豁免问题提供更具普遍性的哲学思考。
