To the Editor:
I read with interest over the past couple of weeks several readers’ responses to my Feb. 12 letter. In that letter, I disagreed with Sen. Testa’s piece, published Jan. 29, where he referred to bill S-2173 as “invasive” and said it would have eliminated parents’ religious freedoms to decline vaccinations for their children.
Thank you to all who took the time to write in reply to my letter. As the responses made clear, childhood vaccination remains a hot-button issue that evokes passionate responses from the public.
Although it’s unlikely to change the responders’ opinions on childhood vaccination, I do want to clarify here what I wrote and what I did not write in my original letter, which perhaps wasn’t clear enough.
First, I did not say that Testa oversimplified the bill, I said he oversimplified the issues. The headline of my letter, which I did not write, was incorrect and missed the main points of my opinion piece.
The main points I made were that the crucial issues are the ethical conflicts involving personal interest versus public health and safety. And I pointed out it is certainly not easy to address whose rights deserve priority in that context.
Last, I wrote that addressing these conflicts requires thoughtful consideration and dialogue.
It’s still my opinion that Testa’s referring to bill S-2173 as government intrusion on religious freedom missed the crucial issues I define as such here. And I stand by my recommendations to avoid unreliable sources of information and to instead rely on sources like the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention for evidence-based information on vaccines at: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/index.html.
If readers have any questions regarding the risks and benefits of vaccines, they should discuss those with their healthcare provider.
