Parents’ Worldview Shouldn’t Endanger the Child

(Posted by Rishab Nandan – 6.14.19)

The proposed legislation in New Jersey about allowing children over 14 to take vaccines without parental consent raises some key social policy debates. On the one hand it seems like this provides the option to at least a few of the kids who are able to diverge from their parents’ views on the opposition to vaccines, to get the required immunization and therefore protection from vaccine preventable diseases. On the other hand, it does not necessarily help bridge the gap in ideology or information, which is the root cause of the chasm between the pro and anti-vaccine camps.

Behavioral psychology suggests that if there was a way to reach the anti-vaccination parents through educational outreach before, enabling their children to go against them will result in anger, resentment and perhaps other draconian measures on the part of these parents to prevent their children from going against their wishes. They will likely view this law as a tool that can be used to manipulate their impressionable kids.

While it  can be argued that child welfare is the responsibility of the society as a whole, especially in situations where the parent is not acting in the best interest of the child (which in itself is a subjective issue if it not a clear good Vs bad decision but lies in the gray zone like no confidence in vaccine safety), this law needs to be the last resort  when all other efforts to convince the parents fail. A 14 year old is still a kid and needs parental support in a positive and happy home environment.

Are there sufficient safety nets and support services that the kids will receive to deal with the aftermath of their parents’ wrath especially in the cases where opposition to vaccines is based on religious grounds and not necessarily on heath or safety concerns? While society has no choice but to take away the parents’ right and autonomy to care for their children their own way when the parents’ actions go again what the society at large believes is best for the child, this has to be done carefully and thoughtfully, with adequate resources  allocated to address the unintended consequences of exercising this law. The very children we intend to protect, should not become collateral damage in this war between the pro and anti-vaccine parties.