Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-02-09
Because Their Parents Do Not
Believe in Vaccination.
SO WRITES PROF. j. II. PAUL.
objects 10 Some Points In Governor
Wells, yeto-Duty Of state In
Educating children.
To the Editor.

To the Editor:
Concerning the proposition to exclude
from the school unvaccinated pupils,
wish TO make some observations
TO begin with, am a vaccnationist;
that is myself and my children have
been vacclnated. / am not competent 10
decide upon the merits of vaccination,
but simply accepted the word OF my
physician that Il was the right thing
TO do. But concerning the merits OF
another question any layman Of intelll-
gence il quite as competent to decide
as is any physician, board OF health,
legislator. or governor; the question:
namely. whether 1t is either right or
expedient 10 enforce vaccination by APP
pying 1t TO school children only.
General compulsory vaccination, In
infected districts, may be necessary
and proper for anything that know or
care, but the proposition TO enforce
vaccination by simply excluding unVac-
cinated children from the schools, Is an
attempt TO punish children for the be-
lief OF their parents.
The children cannot vaccinate them
selves: they are under the jurisdiction
of their parents. They may be quite
willing TO be vaccinated and anxious 10
attend school, and the State has passed
laws compelling them TO attend schooii
but they cannot get an education uh-
less their parents believe In vacclna-
ton II the action Of the health board
is sustained by the Legislature.
THAT mart OF the Governors veto mes
sago which deals with this phase OF
the subject says:
"Thev Tthe childrenl are In one re
spect the wards of the state. II mas an
interest in them and can exercise a
control over them. which may not be
applied to adults"
This Is true IN certain respects;
hut the Governor has here pushed the
prInciple Of state guardianshlp over
children 10 a Gaze in. which IL falls. The
state cannot rightly insist that only
children In school shall be vaccinated.
n vaccination Is any good, IL is good for
adults as well as children, The protec-
tive influence OF vaccination Is the
same In both cases. The duty Of the
sta,e is Identical In both instances. No
American state can afford to deprive
ire vouneer citizens OF an education
sirnlv because their parents do or DO
not believe IN some medical theory.
The Governor says 1t Is the
hounAen duty OF the State 20 furnish
Them fthe chldrenl not only the best
mental training within its power, but
also the greatest possible protection
AGAINST physical injury or disease.
Tho order referred TO 60 exclude I'M
yacclnated pupils) does not insist that
every child shah be vaccinated-it Is
NOT A compulsory measure In the sense
thet many choose to construe IL. IL
COWS in effect that inasmuch as the
state compels the Attendance Of chill
dran M school. II promises TO protect
,hem from this disease and from expo.
SIRE 10 Il while In school, II they VIII
hut conform 10 requirement which
promises immunity To those who
vim not do this Il makes no such
pronlse: IL refuses to accept RESPONSE.
bility for them and It closes the school
doors asainst them.
The Governors argument makes one
point AT least. absolutely clear; that
the order OF the board of health closes
Inc school doors against children
whose parents do not believe In the mer-
lis OF vaccination: and that IL precisely
what ought not 20 be done. Punish
the parents. II you will, for refusal to
comply with sanitary regulations but
never cripple the child. the ward OF the
State, simply because OF some mental