Immunization Requirements

[cb2boys]

Hello all...I am the Daycamp Director for our district and I have a question about the health/medical forms we use...are the Immunization dates required? I tried to find someting at the BSA National site and found conflicting information in the Guide to Safe Scouting/Medical Information...one section talks about it being "strongly recommended" to have current immunizations prior to an event. But then further down under Religious Beliefs & Medical Care, it says "The immunization requirement is waived for persons with religious beliefs against immunization."

 

So, which is it? We have a couple of families in our district that don't do immunizations at all...I was told there was a form from national that they could sign that explains they are exempt...anyone know of that form?

 

Also, I read in another post that the medical forms are only collection medical history...that makes sense to me...so, should we require this information?

 

Thanks!

 

[kbandit]

Does your council have a boy scout summer camp program? If it does contact the camp director and see how they handle boy scouts without the immunizations. I would think CD would know how it is handled and if there is a form.

 

Have you tried your council office? Activities chairman for your district? District Executive?

 

My 2 cents

kbandit

[ScoutNut]

"So, which is it?"

 

Both

 

Current immunizations are recommended, HOWEVER, the BSA makes allowances for religious beliefs that do not allow them.

 

A Class 1 medical form is required for Day Camp. For those folks whose religious beliefs do not include immunizations they should contact their council offices for what/if any forms are to be attached to the Class 1.

 

For those folks who do immunize, my council accepts a flat "current", instead of specific dates.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Translation: BSA tends to think immunizations are beneficial BUT they're not necessary.

 

Reasoning: Religious beliefs don't change basic biological facts. This is why snake handlers tend to react to snakebites the same way as atheists. If these nutcases (sorry, technical term ) who don't immunize their children will similarly reject all other major medical advances, in time selective pressures may do the population a great favor.

By having immunization information in their records, BSA will be able to know, in case of medical need, the degree to which these selective pressures will apply. Therefore, absence, say, of Tetanus immunization for a boy will let BSA know that if there is a subsequent puncture by a dirty nail, or a nasty wound at summer camp with accompanying sepsis, BSA attorneys can get their defence ready for death by tetanus that may occur. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a genetic link to stupidity so the selection process is likely to be wasted.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[FScouter]

The conflicting information referred to by cb2boys is

1) G2SS in one place says "strongly recommended", and

2) in another place says "the requirement".

 

So the question is is are immununizations recommended or required? If there was no requirement, there would be no need for a waiver. I'd say one could require immunizations or not, and support the decision with the G2SS section that supports best.

[packsaddle]

If nothing else, the fact that BSA waives this important medical 'requirement' for non-medical reasons is evidence of the lack of importance that BSA attaches to the 'requirement'. If the importance of immunizations to personal and public health is trumped by some cockamamy religious whim, then it's a requirement of not much importance. I would argue that using this logic, a parent can use almost any reason to reject immunizations, as long as they attached 'religious' significance to it, and BSA would cave.

[ScoutNut]

While I might not personally agree with this particular aspect of certain religions, it is their right to follow the religion they choose. Just as I am not forced to join their religion, or follow their teachings, it is their right not to be forced to follow mine.

 

I believe that school systems also make allowances for these religious beliefs.

 

Just because BSA allows exemptions from immunization for religious reasons, does NOT mean that they will also waive the medical exam. Per BSA's exemption form, they still require a medical evaluation and screening by a licensed health care

practitioner.

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/25-01.pdf

 

BSA also has their Informed Consent Agreement -

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34-38.pdf

 

[packsaddle]

ScoutNut, your assertion that in some way immunization against disease might force someone to follow your religion is interesting. So what part of immunization against disease constitutes some aspect (doctrine, belief, faith, etc.) of your particular religion (or anyone else's)? Just curious.

 

As a matter of public health, from an epidemiological viewpoint, a sufficient portion of the population that remained unimmunized, say, against polio, could in fact constitute a reservoir for that disease and thus a public health threat. This threat already exists due to economic and other factors but why increase the problem explicitly through official policy? How far do we carry this idiotic, politically correct approach?

[FScouter]

I agree that I don't think much of our society bearing the cost of polio etc. on a segment that wants to opt out of immunization. Religious beliefs are all well and fine and everyone's entitled to believe whatever they want. But I take umbrage when one guy's belief puts my familys health at risk or places a burden on society. Immunization policy should lie with the governmental public health agencies. BSA should keep out of it.

[ScoutNut]

I never said that MY religion was against immunizations. As a matter of fact, I stated that I did NOT AGREE with withholding immunizations (or any other medical care).

 

However -

 

There ARE some religious doctrines that are against immunizations. There are some people that are against immunizations based on their own strong religious beliefs on certain subjects.

 

What I said was that it is THEIR belief, and it is wrong to force them to go against their beliefs simply because YOU (or I) do not agree with them.

 

The government agrees with this. Just about every state recognizes religious exemptions. From the National Centers for Disease Control web site -

 

"In every state, parents with religious objections to immunization may apply for an exemption for their child or children from the state's immunization requirements for school entry. All states offer medical exemptions (individuals who are immunocompromised, have allergic reactions to vaccine constituents, have moderate or severe illness, etc.). Religious exemptions are allowed in 48 states (West Virginia and Mississippi do not), and 15 states offer philosophical exemptions. The requirements for documentation of medical, religious, or philosophical exemptions vary."

 

You might not agree, you might not like it, but it is a fact that we have to accept, especially as we very well might have some Scouts and Scouters in our units who would fall under this exemption.

 

 

[packsaddle]

ScoutNut, I was responding to your statement, "Just as I am not forced to join their religion, or follow their teachings, it is their right not to be forced to follow mine." That part about them being forced to follow yours was the part I was having trouble connecting to immunizations. But never mind that.

 

I do recognize the reality of our society. What is happening is that because of some cockamamy religious doctrine, the health of my family (and Fscouter's and everyone else's) incurs some amount of increased risk. In a sense THEY are shoving their doctrine (or at least the risks associated with it) down society's throat, not the other way around.

 

But my question was really where do you (we) draw the line? How idiotic does the religious doctrine have to be before we stop this PC nonsense?

Snake handling is fine because they don't bring that into my home. Making noise is fine. But in this case religion is a threat to public health. So how much risk are we willing to accept for the sake of magic and superstition? Where is the line?