College of Law > Academics > Centers, Institutes & Initiatives > Mary and Michael Jaharis Health Law Institute > e-Pulse Blog > California Vaccination Law Reform
California Vaccination Law Reform
By Kate Reynolds /
October 27, 2015 /
/
Facebook
Main Content
Vaccination
rights seem to be a constant presence in today’s media. Those that oppose vaccinations cite that it is
their parental right to make medical decisions for their children
. This group tends to be parents who believe the
vaccinations administered to their young children impacted the child’s health
negatively. A familiar claim is that the
parents noticed signs of autism in their children after the vaccination was
administered, or the vaccinated individual contracted the disease even after
full vaccination was provided. Supporters
of mandatory vaccination believe that it is a societal obligation to prevent at risk
individuals from serious illness or death by requiring children to be
vaccinated. At risk individuals
include
children, pregnant women, seniors, people with cancer, organ transplants, and
other conditions.Recent laws in
California
have sought to make vaccinations mandatory for groups of citizens. Legislators introduced these bills after a measles outbreak at
Disneyland
in December 2014 infected over one hundred people in both the United States and
Mexico. SB 792 would require
California day care center volunteers and workers to be vaccinated against
pertussis, flu, and measles. Some
children enrolled in day care may not be fully vaccinated, so authors of the
bill think it is imperative for day
care workers
to have their immunizations up to date. A
separate bill, SB 277, would require a
vaccination to be administered to school aged children across the state for
measles and whooping cough. The author
of this law, Senator Richard Pan, a pediatrician,
believes the law mandating vaccinations will protect children and their
classmates in school from contracting preventable communicable diseases.
Those in support of the mandatory
vaccination bills, such as San Diego Democratic
Assembly woman
Lorena Gonzalez, understand the viewpoint of parents
choosing whether to vaccinate their children, but believe that this belief must
be balanced against the risks unvaccinated children pose to others. Dr. Catherine Forest, medical director of
Stanford Health Care Clinic in Los Altos
, stated the mandatory vaccination is
not a question of personal choice, but rather an obligation to society. Supporters of the mandatory vaccination bill
see this as a preventable health risk to people who may be susceptible to
contagious diseases, such as measles, pertussis, etc. Those in opposition to the mandatory
vaccination laws state that the primary reason for
their resistance is not the aspect of the vaccination itself, but rather the
fact that parents no longer have a voice in choosing whether or not to
vaccinate their children. At demonstrations
against the mandatory vaccination bills, protestors, generally consisting of
mothers and their children, chant “mandate is not
consent”.
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed the mandatory
vaccination laws, which will take effect in 2016. The mandates are written so more vaccines can be added at any time. Opponents of the bill believe that this is to
ensure pharmaceutical companies’ best interests. Supporters are more optimistic that the openness
of the mandate will allow legislators to act in the public’s best interest by
requiring the vaccination of preventable diseases. With the implementation of this legislation, California will join
Mississippi and West Virginia as the only states to have strict vaccination
requirements.
Kate
Reynolds is currently a 2L at DePaul University College of Law. Ms. Reynolds
completed her undergraduate degree at the University of Illinois Springfield.
Ms. Reynolds wishes to pursue a career in Health Law after graduating in May of
2017.