On vaccine mandate, process fell short

Posted 9/10/15

To the Editor:

During the past few weeks, students around the state went back to school. The start of this school year also marks the commencement date for a new mandate from the Rhode Island …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

On vaccine mandate, process fell short

Posted

To the Editor:

During the past few weeks, students around the state went back to school. The start of this school year also marks the commencement date for a new mandate from the Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH). This year, the department has required that all students entering seventh-grade receive a vaccination for the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV). Rhode Island joins Virginia and Washington, D.C., as the only states and districts to mandate HPV vaccinations.

As a parent, and as a member of the Cranston School Committee, I can attest to the growing concern that this mandate has caused for families, both in Cranston and throughout the state. I recognize that as member of the Cranston School Committee, I have little influence on the state’s health policy. However, this policy affects the students and families that I serve, and for that reason I must express my disagreement with the Department of Health’s requirement of this vaccination. Let me be clear, my opposition does not stem from a judgment regarding the quality, safety or effectiveness of the vaccination. As a parent of a daughter who has entered the seventh grade, I most certainly do have concerns. However, my opposition is to the policy of mandating the vaccination and the process by in which the Rhode Department of Health followed to issue this mandate.

To begin with, I don’t feel that it is necessary to mandate this vaccination as a condition for school attendance. The virus is contracted through sexual contact, not casual contact. Therefore, it is improbable that the disease will be spread at school. Furthermore, I think that threatening to withhold a child’s right to an education is an extreme measure. I do not wish to minimize the dangers that HPV presents. However, I believe that school exclusion should only be employed with highly contagious diseases that pose more immediate health risks to students. I also believe that parents have the right to make important medical decisions for their children, and that this policy infringes upon those rights. Instead of issuing mandates, the Department of Health should have made a greater effort to inform parents. Informational sessions should have been held throughout the year preceding the requirement date. Information regarding the benefits and risks associated with this vaccination should have been provided, along with clear guidelines on how children could qualify for exemptions.

According to this policy, vaccination exemptions can only be based on medical and/or religious reasons.  However, in recent weeks, the RIDOH seems to have softened their position, amounting to a philosophical exemption, perhaps in response to increased protests from parents. According to RI Department of Health spokeswoman Christina Batastini, “Any parent can exempt their child from HPV vaccination if they feel a deep conviction that HPV vaccination is not right for their child.” I believe that if the Department of Health had been more responsive and forthcoming with information at an earlier date, much of the stress and confusion associated with this mandate may have been avoided.

As a firm believer in the theory and practice of representative democracy, I disagree with the process that was followed in issuing this mandate. I am aware that, according to Rhode Island’s General laws, the Department of Health has the authority to require vaccinations. Furthermore, I have no doubt that the officials at RIDOH have the best of intentions for Rhode Island’s children. However, given the sensitivity of this issue and the strong public outcry regarding this vaccination, it is my opinion that a more formal and thorough legislative process should have been followed. The public should have been afforded ample opportunity to voice concerns and debate. Then, armed with that feedback and information, our duly elected representatives in the General Assembly should have voted on the matter. The process would have been more time consuming, but in the final analysis, it would have harvested a better policy for Rhode Island’s students and families.

Daniel Wall

Cranston School Committee, Ward 6

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here