© 2005 American Public Health Association DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.046193
Daniel A. Salmon and Neal A. Halsey are with the Institute for Vaccine Safety, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Md. Jason W. Sapsin and Stephen Teret are with the Center for Law and the Publics Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Richard F. Jacobs is with the College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock. Joseph W. Thompson is with the Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. Kevin Ryan is with the Arkansas Center for Health Improvement, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Daniel A. Salmon, Institute for Vaccine Safety, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Rm E5543, Baltimore, MD 21205 (e-mail: dsalmon{at}jhsph.edu).
Compulsory vaccination has contributed to the enormous success of US immunization programs. Movements to introduce broad "philosophical/personal beliefs" exemptions administered without adequate public health oversight threaten this success. Health professionals and child welfare advocates must address these developments in order to maintain the effectiveness of the nations mandatory school vaccination programs. We review recent events regarding mandatory immunization in Arkansas and discuss a proposed nonmedical exemption designed to allow constitutionally permissible, reasonable, health-oriented administrative control over exemptions. The proposal may be useful in political environments that preclude the use of only medical exemptions. Our observations may assist states whose current nonmedical exemption provisions are constitutionally suspect as well as states lacking legally appropriate administrative controls on existing, broad non-medical exemptions.
| |||||||||||||||||||||