What led to Senate Bill 277 for a change to Immunization?
University of Maryland University College
Public Health Administration
HCAD 630 9040 Assignment #1 Paper 1
Due date: October 02, 2016
The historyof public health is preventing childhood diseases by vaccinations isthe health and safety code for public policyin the Section 120335 of SB 277 for mandatory immunization.Section 120325 listed the childhood disease for immunization.Section 120370 of SB 277 is the request for amended for medical circumstances reasons. Section 120375 is the request for the conditions for personal beliefs to be an exemption to the law. The requests create the debate for legal and ethical issues for two reasons, medical reasons and individual choices. For medical reasons,(some to say)vaccinations can harmchildrento allow childrento diseases for active immunity, for individual choices, for personal beliefs such as not belief in modern medicine or personal choice simply not to abide by law for privilege.However, the public policy for a law is, it is mandatory for a child’s to produce an immunization record for school admission.
Why is CA Senate Bill 277 seeking a change to school vaccination law for mandatory immunization? Immunization is a heated subject for parents, schools, and doctors that influence the governor of California to draft the Senate Bill 277 in July of 2015 to allow all children to attend school without immunization record. This paper will provide the background to Senate Bill 277 (SB277), analyze the bill for ethical and legal issues, and discuss the impact of the bill on public health.
The SB 277 approved by thegovernor of California on June 30, 2015 is to eliminate the existing law for mandatory immunization in Section 120335 of health and safety code for “no child will be admitted to school without a record of immunization”. The purpose of SB 277 is to make an exemption to mandatory immunizationfor school admission according to the bill:
the governing authority of each school or institution in Section 120335 shall prohibit from further attendance any pupil admitted conditionally who failed to obtain the required immunizations within the time limits allowed in the regulations of the department, unless the pupil is exempted under Section 120370, until that pupil has been fully immunized against all of the diseases listed in Section 120335. Existing law authorizes the governing authority of a school or other institution to temporarily exclude a child from school (SB277).
Legal and Ethical issues for SB 277
Legal and ethical issues are the two reasons to debate the bill for the amendment to Section 120370for public policy of health and safety is mandatory immunization for children’s education. The ethical issue is no children should be denial of education just because of a law.
The legal issue is breaking the lawforan exemption to school vaccinationlaws is not a matter of public policy. As well known, the meaning of lawsis to obey.The school vaccines and public safety laws are mandatory immunization to prevent the child from not having childhood diseases for not spreading infectious diseases are the matter of public policies for a child to attend school. For human’s right a child should beprepared to attend school is the responsibility of the legal guardian or the parent.For public right, a child must be healthyfor safety to attend public school. Immunization record isa child legal record for school admission.
Other debatablelegal issues involve medical reasons and individual choice for caring for a child. SB 277 for medical reasons toargue that immunization is not safe for some children or a vaccine to immunize a child may harm a child to suggest it is better for a child to develop his or her immunity from contracting an infectious disease in the Section 120325. The view aligned with Section 120370 for a written record by a licensed physician that a child has self-immunity against all the diseases with the treatment of vaccines. The obstacle to active immunity is very difficult to provefor effectiveness that a child has enough antibodies to defeat the disease for not harboring the residue of the disease for later transmission.Vaccines for preventingchildhood diseases are safe and proven to have enough antibodiesforimmunity for a child not to have the disease in Section 120325. Publichealth laws require reporting any diagnosed of childhood diseases for contagiousness is the public policy for a child to receive medical clearance for health.According toErwin & Brownson, (2017), mandatory immunization is “enforcing the laws and regulations to protect health and safety of vulnerable infants and young children” (p.329).
For theethical issues there are two reasons for SB 277, (some parents say) for medical reason; a vaccine for immunization will harm a child or cause child defect to allow a child to develop self immunity against the childhood diseases under Section 120325. Second, for personal belief, (some parents argue) that modern medicine is not the best to care for their children to have the privileges for individual right.As a matter of fact “Public health works with the Center for Disease Control to make sure vaccines are safe for the children’s is imperative to individual rights for a mandate” (Malone & Hinman,2003).
Other ethical issues include allergic and adverse side effects to vaccines are rare and difficult proof beyond reasonable doubt that a vaccine will harm a child or vaccines cause genetic disease such as autism. Because vaccines are, the art of science to prevent diseases from not happening, is removing the source of diseases from not causingsickness that harm children. However, both reasons for exemption are insufficient to proof that vaccination for immunization does harm a child besides preventing a child from having a disease.Another ethical issue involves the lack of parenting to care for a child to claim exemption for individual choice or personal beliefto avoid not responsible for preparing a child for school. The school vaccination law for mandatory immunization is a record of a child readiness for school.
From experience as a mother and as a medical assistant authorize to administering vaccines for immunization, some parents have the assumption that the vaccines cause autism, despite not having the fact to identify which vaccine, but just unfounded excuse to justify having the choice is disheartening for seeing a parent subjected a child to infect with diseases. For some parentdespite the conviction that smoking can aggregate achild’s asthma continue to smokefor a personalchoice. For personal choice,there areno means to convince a parent thatscience proves vaccines is safe for the children and vaccines are not the cause genetic defect such as autism.To suggest, an exempt is just an excuse for lack of parental responsibility.To illustrate, there are several causes of childhood diseases; it can be from improper sanitation or lack of hygiene of a parent for infecting a child with a preventative diseasesuch as with polio, from a parent for not properly washing his or her hands or sneezing on a child without realizing that he or she had polio. Poliovirus vaccine is one of the early vaccines givenat infancy to protect an infant from contagious diseases from the environment.
The issue with exempt a child from immunization for personal beliefs that a child will build a defense against a disease to develop self-immunity does not base on scienceto view for exposing a child to infectious diseases.Other ethical issues include the dilemma of parents making choices without thorough knowledge, for example, there are differences between active immunity and immunization. Parents that claim that children can be self-immune from come in contact with a disease does not know how to measure a child to develop enough antibody to fight disease. And how can a parent be sure that a child will be able to develop the right amount antibody necessary to defeat unknown diseases or if a child will be able to withstand the lethal dose of a diseasefor not have immunity against the disease to later have a chance for active immunity?Therefore, a parent cannot make that choice for a child without putting a child in danger. Likewise, without the science and the study of a microbe for toxicity, it is difficult to measure how much immunity necessary to defeat a disease. Therefore, how these issues are going to be resolved is the impact of the SB277 on public health.
The impact of the SB277 on the public health
The impact ofSB 277 to exempt children from immunization is allowing the children to have diseases is not the policy or the principlesof the public health.In ethical practice,public health cannotdenial health treatment to vulnerable individualis a matter of public policy to protect the people from diseases and sickness, according to Erwin & Brownson, (2017), “Science is the basis for much of public health knowledge to base an action for preventing diseases” (p.69). Das, U. N., (2011),refers to public health as “the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through the organized efforts of society, organizations, communities and individuals” that the governments recognize that the public health play the important role in regulating immunization.A case for refusal vaccine study by Saint-Victor & Omer (2013) indicates the adverse effects of exempt immunization on the children led to rising in diseases:
Vaccine refusal and the endgame of non-compliance with polio, measles and smallpox for vaccine give rise to the incidence of disease despite advances in sanitation and immunization among children under 5 years and from a refusal to vaccine-preventable diseases, (VPDs) represent 17% death of child under-five worldwide.
The goal of public health is to preventing disease, promoting health and striving to eradicate diseases. According to Delamater, Leslie & Young, (2016), “from the history of United States, childhood immunization by vaccination is the most beneficiary public health practices that have increase the use of non-medical intervention to eliminate diseases”. An amendment to exempt from immunization is allowing the harboring of childhood diseases.
Conclusion for deliberation
The purpose of SB 277 is to exempt some children from mandatory immunization. The public policy is that the school vaccination law is mandatory for children’s readiness for school. The legal issue is that vaccine’s side effects can harm the children to exempt the children for self-immunity is controversial for which children to exempt.The ethical issue with humans’ right for individual choices is the right of the public for health and safety. The school vaccination law is mandatory immunization for the children readiness to attend public school is the prerequisite for school admission to halt the SB 277with“a vote of 25-10 to remove the personal belief exemption” (News, 2015) for disallowing parents to opt out from mandatory immunization.
Das, U. N., (2011). Molecular basis of health and disease. Springer Science & Business Media.
Delamater, P.l., Leslie, T.f., & Yang, Y. T., (2016). A spatiotemporal analysis of non-medical exemptions from vaccination: California schools before and after SB277. Social Science& Medicine, doi:10,1016/j.soscsimde.2016.08.011. Retrieve for access 2016-09-26
Erwin, P.C. & Brownson, R.C., (2017). Principles of Public Health Practice (4th edition) Cengage Learning (p.67-69, 329)
Malone, K. M., & Hinman, A. R. (2003). Vaccinations mandates: the public health imperativeand individual rights. Law in public health practice, 262-84. Retrieved for access 2016-09-26.SB-277 Public Health: Vaccinations. (2015). Access 2016-09-27 Retrieved fromhttps://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB277
News, (2015). For the right to free kids from vaccinations, local community memberNews, ieved from Accessed October 1, 2016, Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=add611af-9b67-4413-b0fd-