The patient, or the patient's guardian in the case of a minor, has the responsibility of making the decision. Only in rare circumstances may this decision be overridden. Such circumstances require the intervention of an unbiased court, and the State carries a burden of proof. A physician who subjects a patient to a treatment without informed consent, in the absence of a court order, commits assault and battery. Nor is there justification for the State to abrogate citizens' rights in order to impose mass immunization.
Most parents act in what they conscientiously believe to be in the best interest of their children.
They do not take lightly the decision to decline to act on a physician's advice, or the recommendations of the State Public Health Department. Vaccine mandates are not necessarily based on the best scientific information, and the process for establishing the mandates is often tainted by apparent financial conflicts of interest. The rotavirus vaccine is a case in point. While people usually assume that a mandated product must undergo rigorous safety testing, vaccine safety tests are extremely limited in duration and scope. Moreover, the results may be unavailable for independent scrutiny.