Is it possible to get out of getting my dtr the flu shot?

[Pigeon]

But, there again, its not just about you and your child. If your child is enrolled in preschool, its about all of the children enrolled.

I vaccinate my kids for most things, flu vax being one of two exceptions. I'm generally a big fan of vaccination.

But I entirely support the right of people do make their own decision about the matter. If you think you could be harming your kid, you shouldn't be forced to have them injected for the sake of other people.

And I've been immunocompromised myself for a significant period of time.

 

[luvsJack]

She is following the rules. The law allows for religious exemptions if a parent claims its against their religion so she can claim that. I don't care of she lies, unless there is a law that says she has to furnish proof of her religious beliefs and she forges documents stating her religion, she is following the rules just by claiming it.

Oh, I see. So we get to pick and choose which rules we follow "to the letter" and which ones we can lie our way out of and which ones we can find a loop hole to?

Gotcha!

Like I said, the OP knows that it is a lie. If she is worried about a reaction that her child had, all she has to do is talk to the dr. about it. If she doesn't trust her dr. to give her good advise, then she needs to find another dr. that she does trust.

 

[mfd25wife]

I've had the flu, no idea what strain. I also had H1N1, which was horrible. I would not have wished it on anyone. Again, I have a weak immune system and have gotten the flu shot. I didn't tell DD to get it, but she rarely gets sick. My PCP is a DO. He believes some vaccinations are good but not all.

I don't understand people getting so worked up over this. Ultimately, I personally think it should be up to the parents. NJ has a law that it is mandatory except religious or medical exemptions exist. OP, I'd call the doctor to see if he or she will give you something. If not, I still would not feel hesitate to protect my child. If I had to write a note that I object based on religious grounds for my child, I would. There is no reason to post derogatory things about other posters just because they disagree with you. Insulting people rarely influences them to consider your ideas.

 

[Pigeon]

Oh, I see. So we get to pick and choose which rules we follow "to the letter" and which ones we can lie our way out of and which ones we can find a loop hole to?

Gotcha!

Like I said, the OP knows that it is a lie. If she is worried about a reaction that her child had, all she has to do is talk to the dr. about it. If she doesn't trust her dr. to give her good advise, then she needs to find another dr. that she does trust.

You've never exceeded the speed limit, I'm sure.

 

[pacrosby]

Oh, I see. So we get to pick and choose which rules we follow "to the letter" and which ones we can lie our way out of and which ones we can find a loop hole to?

Gotcha!

Actually, we do

Society is full of 'rules' that don't always make sense; put in place because it's easier to make blanket policies; and because we can't possibly ever allow people to use common sense( because, of course, people can't be trusted to have any )

I 'pick and choose' all the time. And I willingly accept the consequences. "My" world needs to make sense. YMMV.

 

[mfd25wife]

But, there again, its not just about you and your child. If your child is enrolled in preschool, its about all of the children enrolled.

If it's about ALL children enrolled and not just the one child, ALL should be forced to be vaccinated. No one forces any of the children into preschool. Remember, it's about ALL of them so if one cannot get the shot for any reason, we've been reminded in this thread that the parent can just homeschool or go somewhere else. I know the law says there are exemptions. My point is if people are arguing that it's about all the children and the individual child is not to be considered, then none of the individual children should be considered.

 

[luvsJack]

Actually, we do

Society is full of 'rules' that don't always make sense; put in place because it's easier to make blanket policies; and because we can't possibly ever allow people to use common sense( because, of course, people can't be trusted to have any )

I 'pick and choose' all the time. And I willingly accept the consequences. "My" world needs to make sense. YMMV.

Sure, as long as you are willingly to accept the consequences.

The consequences here are that the OP can choose not to follow the rule and her child will not be allowed in preschool. She isn't willing to accept the consequences so it is being suggested that she lie instead. That's not the same thing as "accepting the consequences".

 

[luvsJack]

If it's about ALL children enrolled and not just the one child, ALL should be forced to be vaccinated. No one forces any of the children into preschool. Remember, it's about ALL of them so if one cannot get the shot for any reason, we've been reminded in this thread that the parent can just homeschool or go somewhere else. I know the law says there are exemptions. My point is if people are arguing that it's about all the children and the individual child is not to be considered, then none of the individual children should be considered.

The individual child is considered, that is why there are reasons for exemptions. But the OP doesn't honestly fall under either of those exemptions. Should they force children that have medical issues or allergies to the vaccine to have the shot? (remember, this rule also includes children in child care, so we are including more than the 3 day a week preschool child here) And should we also change the freedom of religion that we all have?

Her child is not forced into preschool either.

Children under 5 are one of the highest risk groups for having complications from the flu. Children under 2 are an even higher risk.

Children under 6 months are not given the vaccine (someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that is what I understood from the CDC). If your 4 year old attends a preschool that also cares for children under 6 months (child care center with infants); would you really be ok with your 4 year old getting the flu from home and bringing it to that infant? It doesn't matter the reason, would you be ok with it?

 

[Christopher Robin]

Poor atheists are SOL, I guess.

 

[mhsjax]

Anyone else ever wonder which side of the vaccine argument Charles Darwin would be on?




Did I just stir the pot a little more? I really am curious and can see him being on either side.

Gee, I don't know. I do that my parents never had the vaccine, they both died in their middle eighties and they never had the flu. I am 49 and have been vaccinated one time, stupidity I guess, and I had the flu one time. It was a very mild case but was diagnosed as the flu by a Dr. My3 kids have never had one, they all went through pre school and NEVER had the flu, still haven't. Maybe if none of us got flu shots, survival of the fittest would prevail. Everyone not strong enough to survive a virus would die. Not trying to be ugly, but if you want to through out Darwinism, lets just go there also.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

She is following the rules. The law allows for religious exemptions if a parent claims its against their religion so she can claim that. I don't care of she lies, unless there is a law that says she has to furnish proof of her religious beliefs and she forges documents stating her religion, she is following the rules just by claiming it.

No, she is not. How are you not following this? The OP stated that she does not have a religious objection and therefore now needs to lie about having one (and was concerned that the school would see through her lie) because she doesn't want to follow the law or accept the consequences of not following the law.

The law does not provide an exemption for anybody who "has a religious objection or is willing to lie and say they do". It provides an exemption for anybody who "has a religious objection". Therefore, she is not following the rules.

You've never exceeded the speed limit, I'm sure.

Reductio ad absurdum at its finest there, but it doesn't apply to this conversation at all.

But yes, in answer to your question, I have broken the speed limit many times and I've been pulled over and given a ticket. I faced the consequences of my actions, which the OP is not willing to do. I also learned to change my behavior and didn't have people telling me that I should lie and say I was hurring to the hospital to see my wife who was in labor...

Actually, we do

Society is full of 'rules' that don't always make sense; put in place because it's easier to make blanket policies; and because we can't possibly ever allow people to use common sense( because, of course, people can't be trusted to have any )

I 'pick and choose' all the time. And I willingly accept the consequences. "My" world needs to make sense. YMMV.

Yes, I willingly accept the consequences of my choices, as well. The OP is not willing to accept the consequences of her choice to not vaccinate her child, however, and therein lies the issue.

Look, at the end of the day I fully expect the OP to either lie about a religious objection or to find a doctor who will create an alternate reality in order to fit her needs, and I don't expect the world to end as a result of her actions. I just won't say that it's the right thing to do because I disagree with her values in this case.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

Anyone else ever wonder which side of the vaccine argument Charles Darwin would be on?

Did I just stir the pot a little more? I really am curious and can see him being on either side.

I think he would agree that the gene pool could use a little chlorine.

A mass outbreak of polio or diptheria or measles across the unimmunized population might cause people to rethink their stance of hiding behind the protection of the herd, but it would be a shame to punish children for the actions/inactions of their parents.

 

[luvmy3]

Oh, I see. So we get to pick and choose which rules we follow "to the letter" and which ones we can lie our way out of and which ones we can find a loop hole to?

Gotcha!

Like I said, the OP knows that it is a lie. If she is worried about a reaction that her child had, all she has to do is talk to the dr. about it. If she doesn't trust her dr. to give her good advise, then she needs to find another dr. that she does trust.

Yes, when it comes to the choice between injecting our children with a vaccination we don't want them to have, or lying so we don't have to, I think a parent can do whatever they want to do.

No, she is not. How are you not following this? The OP stated that she does not have a religious objection and therefore now needs to lie about having one (and was concerned that the school would see through her lie) because she doesn't want to follow the law or accept the consequences of not following the law.

The law does not provide an exemption for anybody who "has a religious objection or is willing to lie and say they do". It provides an exemption for anybody who "has a religious objection". Therefore, she is not following the rules.



Reductio ad absurdum at its finest there, but it doesn't apply to this conversation at all.

But yes, in answer to your question, I have broken the speed limit many times and I've been pulled over and given a ticket. I faced the consequences of my actions, which the OP is not willing to do. I also learned to change my behavior and didn't have people telling me that I should lie and say I was hurring to the hospital to see my wife who was in labor...



Yes, I willingly accept the consequences of my choices, as well. The OP is not willing to accept the consequences of her choice to not vaccinate her child, however, and therein lies the issue.

Look, at the end of the day I fully expect the OP to either lie about a religious objection or to find a doctor who will create an alternate reality in order to fit her needs, and I don't expect the world to end as a result of her actions. I just won't say that it's the right thing to do because I disagree with her values in this case.

I'm following just fine, thanks.
The OP has choices, #1 keep her kid in pre-school and get the vaccine, or #2 keep her kid in pre-school and not get the vaccine, or #3 not keep her kid in pre-school. You may not like what she chooses, but it doesn't make it any less of a choice. Again, the law says she can claim religious exemption, it doesn't say she has to prove it. She is working the system to protect her child, I don't see a problem with it.

 

[SaraJayne]

Yes, when it comes to the choice between injecting our children with a vaccination we don't want them to have, or lying so we don't have to, I think a parent can do whatever they want to do.



I'm following just fine, thanks.
The OP has choices, #1 keep her kid in pre-school and get the vaccine, or #2 keep her kid in pre-school and not get the vaccine, or #3 not keep her kid in pre-school. You may not like what she chooses, but it doesn't make it any less of a choice. Again, the law says she can claim religious exemption, it doesn't say she has to prove it. She is working the system to protect her child, I don't see a problem with it.

 

[pacrosby]

Yes, I willingly accept the consequences of my choices, as well. The OP is not willing to accept the consequences of her choice to not vaccinate her child, however, and therein lies the issue.

.

Actually, in this or a similar circumstance what I meant is that I would be willing to accept the consequences of lying....if found out. I will admit to having broken 'rules' by lying about something and under certain circumstances I will likely find myself doing so again. And yes, I would be ok with my children not only knowing that I did/do so but also ok with them doing the same...under certain circumstances (given the neverending list of absurd 'policies' and 'rules' that we now seem to be faced with on a daily basis). My children and I actually have endless conversations about this very thing.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

I'm following just fine, thanks.
The OP has choices, #1 keep her kid in pre-school and get the vaccine, or #2 keep her kid in pre-school and not get the vaccine, or #3 not keep her kid in pre-school. You may not like what she chooses, but it doesn't make it any less of a choice. Again, the law says she can claim religious exemption, it doesn't say she has to prove it. She is working the system to protect her child, I don't see a problem with it.

By lying, though, correct? Because the law does not say she can pretend to have a religious objection, it says she can have a religious objection. And since she's choosing to do the former because she does not have the latter, while I will stipulate that you are correct that it's a choice, it's not actually a legal choice, as it's a decision to lie to break the law. For example, if my neighbor was keeping me up at night playing loud music, you would be correct in saying I have a choice to ask my neighbor to turn down the loud music, or to shut my windows, or to break into his house and steal his stereo equipment and smash it with a sledgehammer, but only the first two of those choices are actually legal.

And you're fine with her decision to lie to circumvent the law, and I'll freely stipulate that's not the end of the world that she's choosing to do so, but I just want to make sure we're on the same page with our understanding of the facts. Because if you don't see how saying you have a religious objection when you, in fact, do not have one is NOT following the law, then you are not actually following at all, regardless of your inclusion of the cute laughing/pounding smiley...

 

[pacrosby]

Sure, as long as you are willingly to accept the consequences.

The consequences here are that the OP can choose not to follow the rule and her child will not be allowed in preschool. She isn't willing to accept the consequences so it is being suggested that she lie instead. That's not the same thing as "accepting the consequences".

Actually as explained in my post above in this case I meant the consequences for lying, if caught.

For me the question is whether by not following the rule/lying I will be harming someone else. In this case I'm not of the opinion that not having the vaccine is putting the other kids at significant risk especially since the vaccine is available to those who want it (and let's not forget, NJ is the only state with this rule). If I felt otherwise I would disagree with lying to get out of it.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

Maybe the OP should run for office in NJ on a platform of repealing the law? Let the public have a voice about what is apparently to some a critical issue...

 

[Mouse House Mama]

Well here is something I am curious about. All of this fighting about the flu shot (which we don't get) but what about other vaccines for the adults that are caring for the children? Are daycare/teachers required to get the pertussis vaccine? There have been many outbreaks of that in the last few years and it is reccommended that adults get the vax because they can spread that to children very easily. Why no upset and forcing the adults to get that vax?

 

[JennaDeeDooDah]

Gee, I don't know. I do that my parents never had the vaccine, they both died in their middle eighties and they never had the flu. I am 49 and have been vaccinated one time, stupidity I guess, and I had the flu one time. It was a very mild case but was diagnosed as the flu by a Dr. My3 kids have never had one, they all went through pre school and NEVER had the flu, still haven't. Maybe if none of us got flu shots, survival of the fittest would prevail. Everyone not strong enough to survive a virus would die. Not trying to be ugly, but if you want to through out Darwinism, lets just go there also.

I'm not saying he would side one way or the other. I think that you could argue he would agree with either stance. He could be against vaccines because he believes that you need to have evolved to the point that your body can naturally fight off illnesses. He could be for vaccines because he believes that we have evolved to a point where we know how to at least limit our chances of getting an illness. I wasn't trying to say that he would definitely agree with one side or the other. Just wondering which side people thought he would likely fall on.