Scott Gibson: Oregon duty-bound to tighten vaccination law

The anti-vaccination movement has a wide following in the Northwest. In Clark County, Washington, epicenter of the current outbreak, almost one-fourth of school-age children have not been vaccinated for measles, mumps or rubella. And Oregon’s unvaccinated rate for kindergartners is 7.5 percent, highest in the nation.

Resistance to vaccination has been an issue from the outset.

The first effective tool for combating smallpox was inoculation. Fluid from a smallpox victim was placed in a small scratch on the arm, causing a local outbreak of blisters that served to create lifelong immunity.

In 1721, an outbreak of smallpox in Boston claimed the life of 850 of the city’s 11,000 residents. Two physicians inoculated anyone who wanted to try the new method, which served to lower the death rate for those treated by a factor of seven.

In spite of this medical triumph, however, the physicians were opposed by pastors, civic leaders and even the newspaper of James Franklin, brother of Benjamin Franklin.

Later, Edward Jenner, a British physician, began using fluid from cowpox to inoculate patients against smallpox, thus creating the first “vaccine.” The term is derived from the Latin term for cow, which as “vacca.”

By vaccinating thousands of patients and keeping meticulous records, Jenner proved the effectiveness of his vaccine. So successful was he that smallpox was declared globally eradicated in 1980, following a massive worldwide vaccination program.

One would assume such well-demonstrated effectiveness would prove persuasive for everyone, but that’s not the case. There have always been opponents to vaccination.

The Supreme Court weighed in on the subject in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905case in which Cambridge pastor Henning Jacobson refused vaccination for himself or his children and was fined accordingly.

The court held that the government does have the authority to compel vaccination “for the protection of the public health and public safety.” And in 1921, it followed up in Zucht v. King by affirming that unvaccinated children can be excluded from school.

Of all the tools available to medical science for the prevention of disease, none is more potent than vaccination.

Vaccines eliminated smallpox, which for centuries killed more than 10 percent of Europeans. They have nearly extinguished polio, a disease so feared that when the first vaccine was made available for clinical trial, more than a million American parents begged for their children to be included. They have gone on to make diseases like mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis and, yes, measles, fade from modern experience.

However, to some degree, vaccines have fallen victim to their own success. Diseases like measles, mumps, tetanus and diphtheria have become so rare it gives people the luxury of disregarding the disease and focusing on vaccination side effects, sometime real but more often imagined.

Polio is no longer a terror. Few doctors have ever treated a case of tetanus or diphtheria. As a result, to some people, vaccines seem more an intrusion than salvation.

But the current outbreak of measles shows how quickly these diseases can re-emerge.We are only as safe as our level of vaccination keeps us.  If that level drops below 93 percent, studies tell us, we are susceptible to epidemics.

Parents who do not vaccinate put their children at risk, which is morally negligent. They also put at risk babies too young for vaccines and children and adults who cannot be vaccinated because of diseases like cancer or immune disorders, which is unconscionable.

Vaccination is not just a personal decision. Other lives are at risk. As the Supreme Court stated, vaccinations are a matter of “public health and public safety.”

The anti-vaxxers scoff at the Everest of evidence in favor of vaccines and harken to charlatans spreading lies and blatherskite.

Autism, mercury poisoning and immune system overload are just some of the specious arguments debunked by well-conducted scientific studies.  But these studies don’t seem to matter to the reality-deniers among us.

Some who do not vaccinate are simply misinformed. But a core of anti-vaxxers, especially the most vocal, are what some call “unpersuadables.”

Such individuals are beyond any argument, no matter how compelling. The more legitimate the evidence against their position, the more entrenched they become.

It’s important to note, however, that anti-vaxxers rarely, if ever, call for everyone to avoid vaccines. In truth, they want to live under the dome of protection afforded them by the widespread vaccination of others.

They rely on herd immunity to protect their children so they can self-righteously raise the banner of individual choice for themselves. They certainly aren’t marching on the Legislature demanding the return of polio.

We, as a society, cannot let those who sneer at science threaten the health and safety of our children.

If someone builds a fire during the dry season, and it spreads to the neighborhood, that person faces civil and possibly criminal liability. Shouldn’t a parent who refuses vaccines, and thereby spreads measles to an infant, be judged culpable as well?

If a child loses his hearing to measles-induced encephalitis, I think those who allowed the disease to spread should be held accountable.  

Beyond the danger epidemics pose, there is the cost. Tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars are spent containing each new preventable outbreak, all in order to coddle the minority of nervous parents who close their eyes to the reality that vaccines save lives.

It’s the duty of government to protect the vulnerable, not cater to conspiracy theorists. So we need much stronger laws.

People may remain unpersuadable, but if they face liability for the damage they cause by failing to vaccinate, their perspective will change.

Laws matter. Consequences focus the mind. 

The 2019 Legislature must strengthen Oregon’s vaccination laws. If it does not, its reputation will be as shame-speckled as a case of measles.