No. 22
May 17, 1999
By Sue Blevins*

By the time they reach the age of five, the majority of American children is given 33 doses of 10 different vaccines. Some lawmakers, parents, and medical professionals have begun to question the long-term effects of these vaccines on children’s health and consider the proper role of government in this area.

The U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Government Reform has scheduled a May 18 hearing on the effects of, and policy issues surrounding, the Hepatitis B vaccine for children. This hearing is an important first step toward serious governmental evaluation of the health and social consequences of mandatory vaccination.

Federal health officials have recommended that, in addition to routine childhood vaccines, all infants and children ages 11-12 get vaccinated for Hepatitis B. But unlike other communicable diseases that are easily transmitted through air and casual contact, Hepatitis B is transmitted by direct contact with blood and body fluids. Those at risk for contracting the disease include intravenous drug users, sexually active individuals, blood transfusion recipients, health-care workers, and babies born to high-risk mothers.

As recently reported in a Regulation article, the government’s public-health officials could not effectively vaccinate intravenous drug users and prostitutes. Therefore, they are forcing all children — even those not at risk — to be vaccinated against Hepatitis B. The Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) web site explains: "While most HBV [Hepatitis B virus] infections occur among older adolescents and young adults, vaccination of persons in high-risk groups has generally not been a successful public health strategy." In other words, the government could not force adults in the high-risk behavior groups to accept the Hepatitis B vaccine, so they are going after newborns and young children—the groups least likely to contract or transmit the disease.

Currently, the Hepatitis B vaccine is required for children in 42 states, with medical exemptions in all states, religious exemptions in all but two states, and philosophical exemptions in 16 states. Public health advocates argue that the benefits outweigh the risks, so parents should vaccinate their children. However, civil libertarians and those in favor of a free market raise an important question.

Who should be making this decision in the first place? Why should Johnny be vaccinated against his will if he is not at risk for contracting or transmitting Hepatitis B? And why should Johnny’s parents be forced (by state law) to vaccinate their child for Hepatitis B, if Johnny poses no threat to himself or to other students?

Some parents have refused to have their children vaccinated for fear of unknown long-term side effects. The CDC’s web site assures Americans that the Hepatitis B vaccine has been shown to be very safe when given to infants, children, and adults. Yet, the Physicians Desk Reference (PDR) tells another story.

The PDR lists a host of serious side effects that occur with less than one percent of injections. This number may sound small, but when one considers there are more than 70 million American children, that means nearly 700 thousand children could suffer serious adverse reactions. That is far more than the approximately 30 thousand infants and children the CDC claims were infected each year before routine Hepatitis B immunization began.

The French Ministry of Health suspended Hepatitis B vaccinations in schools because of the public’s concern about long-term side effects. Meanwhile, concerned parents in Canada recently went to court asking the government to stop Hepatitis B vaccinations for up to 18 thousand fourth-grade students across Manitoba.

Americans in general and legislators in particular need to remember that the role of our government is to protect individual rights; not to run individual lives. Our country was founded on the principle of individual liberty, not state control. Times change, technologies change, and we see new health-care advances every day. But one thing remains the same: Americans have an inherent desire for freedom of choice.

The United States should set the world standard for liberty by giving parents the freedom to decide whether or not to vaccinate their children for Hepatitis B. If parents are not even allowed to reject questionable vaccines for preventative disease, such as Hepatitis B, what then will be forced upon their children in the future? Where do we draw the line for vaccinating children?

Government certainly has a legitimate role in making sure all parents understand the risks and benefits of vaccines. But in the end, parents, not the government, should be the ones making important health-care decisions for their children.

*Sue Blevins is the President of the Institute for Health Freedom in Washington, D.C. and author of “Vaccinating Children: Where Do We Draw the Line?” in the Pacific Research Institute Project on Children’s Legislators’ Guide to Children’s Issues 1999, upon which this article is based.

For additional information, contact Naomi Lopez at (415) 989-0833.