Kan. Boy Suspended for Not Being Immunized

kwright · #1 (**permalink**) 04-26-2006, 06:37 AM

Kan. Boy Suspended for Not Being Immunized
Email this Story

Apr 25, 3:26 PM (ET)

OTTAWA, Kan. (AP) - A high school student in Franklin County has been suspended from school for 12 days because he has not been immunized for mumps, the boy's parent said.

John Brockway told school officials at a board meeting Monday that he's not happy his son will be barred from school and miss his prom and a music trip, just because another child at Ottawa High School has mumps.

Brockway criticized a state form that requires parents of students who are not immunized to agree that their children will be excluded from school in the case of a vaccine-preventable disease outbreak.

Brockway acknowledged he signed the form, claiming a religious exemption from immunizations for his children. "If the immunization works, my child is not a threat to anyone," he said.

The board went into executive session during the meeting, and upon returning, President Marge Stevens said the board found the school followed district policy. However, the board asked Superintendent Jan Collins to investigate further.

Collins said Tuesday that school officials are examining what other districts have done in similar situations.

Six cases of mumps have been reported in Franklin County as of Tuesday, county Health Department Director Barbara Conus said, and one case involves an Ottawa High School student. She said all six people either had the vaccination or had the disease before.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060425/D8H77FU84.html

Meribritt1 · #2 (**permalink**) 04-26-2006, 10:14 AM

I don't see a problem with the kid being asked not to come to school. His father signed a release form.

John Brockway told school officials at a board meeting Monday that he's not happy his son will be barred from school and miss his prom and a music trip, just because another child at Ottawa High School has mumps.

Brockway criticized a state form that requires parents of students who are not immunized to agree that their children will be excluded from school in the case of a vaccine-preventable disease outbreak.

Brockway acknowledged he signed the form, claiming a religious exemption from immunizations for his children.

Annette027 · #3 (**permalink**) 04-26-2006, 11:19 AM

I agree, I don't see a problem if his parents signed the release stating this could happen. I see the school trying to protect him especially since there is an outbreak of mumps in that area of the country right now.

jillindelray · #4 (**permalink**) 04-26-2006, 01:38 PM

i don't think the school should have gotten involved to the degree of suspending the non-immunized boy. they should INFORM the family if they are aware of a communicable disease at the school, however, i believe the decision of whether or not their child goes to school lies solely with the family.

Meribritt1 · #5 (**permalink**) 04-26-2006, 06:47 PM

they should INFORM the family if they are aware of a communicable disease at the school, however, i believe the decision of whether or not their child goes to school lies solely with the family.

Then what was the point of having the parents sign the release form at the beginning of the school year.

Beth,Alyssa,Robby · #6 (**permalink**) 04-26-2006, 08:51 PM

It's not the school's responsibility to protect him from illness. The parents are well aware of the risk, and he is old enough to understand the risk.

jillindelray · #7 (**permalink**) 04-27-2006, 05:49 AM

Then what was the point of having the parents sign the release form at the beginning of the school year.

i assume the intention of the release was to indemnify the school in the event the son became ill or died from a disease that he wasn't immunized for.

in my opinion the school didn't need to go any further than informing the family that a student had the mumps.

3timesblessed · #8 (**permalink**) 04-30-2006, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by jillindelray

i assume the intention of the release was to indemnify the school in the event the son became ill or died from a disease that he wasn't immunized for.

in my opinion the school didn't need to go any further than informing the family that a student had the mumps.

I am sure that is the reason for the form.

We do not immunize and have signed a similar form. We would keep our kids home from school, because that is what we signed. But I find it funny that they want to keep the non-immunized children home, when it is the immunized children that got the disease, in this case, the Mumps. 70% of the people that have had the Mumps in what is being called, an epidemic, were immunized. Proof that the immunization is not 100% effective, or that a booster needs to be administered later in life, for those that chose to immunized.
I was tested when PG with my first son, and was not immune. Right after his birth, I was given an MMR, assured by my Dr. that my son would not be in danger. He was 3 months old when he was diagnosed with the Mumps. The pediatrician said it came from my shot, just took that to show up on him. I was tested a 2nd time, when first PG with my 2nd son, again not immune. At that point we had decided against the immunization anyway, so I opted not to have the test done. That was just 13 months after my MMR booster.