Recent Measles Outbreaks Amongst Religious Anti-Vaccine Groups – Analysis of the Argument About Natural Immunization

Published by Rishab Nandan (5.16.19)

The recent news about measles outbreak in the US among religious groups, including the news about the quarantine of a scientology cruise ship due to measles outbreak, and the litigation surrounding the ban of a high school teenager from attending school assembly for not being vaccinated against measles (and eventually contracting it), highlights the not-so-recent conflict between the pro and anti-vaccination camps.

Anti-vaccine sentiments seem to stem from a wide variety of reasons that include concerns about the safety of vaccines and their ingredients, religious objections based on the ethical dilemmas associated with using human tissue cells to create vaccines, and the beliefs that the body is sacred, and should not receive certain chemicals or blood or tissues from animals, and should be healed by God or natural means. Some have begun to promote natural immunity over vaccine-induced immunity. These factors have resulted in conflicts and sometimes divergent goals of protecting individual liberties and safeguarding the public’s health.

Individual versus public health priorities were first argued in the U.S. Supreme Court more than 100 years ago. In Jacobson versus Massachusetts, a resident of the city of Cambridge refused to be vaccinated for smallpox, because he believed that the law violated his right to care for his own body, the way he knew best. The Court rejected Jacobson’s challenge. This 1905 ruling has served as the foundation for state actions to limit individual liberties in order to protect the public’s health.

While it is possible to get natural immunity against certain diseases like measles, the only way to get natural immunity is through infection with the actual disease, which means that one has to get sick – sometimes severely ill – to get resistance. Vaccines, on the other hand, cause a natural immune response in the body without causing illness. Measles infection causes encephalitis for 1 in 1,000 and kills two of every 1,000 infected individuals. In contrast, the risk of encephalitis as a result of the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine is 1 in 1,000,000. From a pure odds perspective, statistics suggests it is safer to pick vaccines.

The argument of developing natural immunity by simply getting the disease also breaks down for deadly diseases such as smallpox or Ebola. If there is a virulent outbreak of deadly diseases such as Ebola, and if vaccines are developed to protect people against Ebola, contracting the disease to develop immunity will likely not be a reasonable option since that would mean death in most cases. That’s where the religious viewpoint against vaccinating, and instead, waiting to get naturally immunized falls apart. The two priorities – protecting and taking care of thy neighbor Vs following one’s deeply held beliefs – diverge. While we humans have a very strong sense of identity and want to control the choices we make for ourselves, viruses and bacteria know no boundaries.

Is it fair to sacrifice other people’s lives to stick to one’s principles and religious beliefs? Perhaps it is easier that this conflict does not have to be resolved at an individual level, but by the laws of the land in most countries, which choose statistics over staunch viewpoints and choose options that protect the majority even if (regrettably in some cases), that overrides the preferences of the minority – this is the cost of sharing the air we breathe and the earth we live on!