| My daughter's play group consists of children ranging in age
from infancy to 4 years old. One mother revealed that she does
not vaccinate her son. After much frank but cordial discussion
and opinions from pediatricians -- some thought she endangered
our vaccinated kids; others did not -- she felt pressured to
leave the group. Did the group behave ethically? -- J.G.,
Pasadena, Calif.
The group's inclination was understandable, but its actions
were unfortunate. Parents may -- must -- provide for their kids'
safety, but should not act unless that safety is truly
threatened. Had you thought this mother was a witch who would
cast wicked spells on your kids, you would have been wrong to
purge her from your midst. A parent may prevent her child from
being turned into a toad, but she may not exile someone when
there's no actual risk of toadturning. You could, however, expel
a member who is merely a social or cultural menace -- a parent
(or precocious but sullen 2-year-old) who curses like a drunken
sailor, perhaps.
Did this mother present any such dangers? It can be a tough
call to make when pediatricians offer contradictory advice, but
the doctors I consulted say she did not imperil your kids, so I
say you were wrong to push her out. Her views on vaccination are
certainly benighted. Or as Dr. Mark Cullen of the Yale medical
school more tactfully puts it, "The data on the harm from
vaccines (e.g., autism) is such that the mother's choice not to
vaccinate is a very poor one for her own child." That is, she
endangers not your play group's vaccinated kids but her own. She
also jeopardizes other people's unvaccinated children. Dr.
Michele Barry, Cullen's wife and also of Yale, cites a statistic
from one study: "The likelihood of an unvaccinated child getting
measles after exposure is anywhere from 22 to 224 times greater
compared to vaccinated kids."
Assuming that this mother is a congenial person (and you
wouldn't have included her otherwise), you should not exile her
simply because she deviates from the group's thinking. It is
possible to socialize with people who have a diversity of ideas,
even wrongheaded ones. As Dr. Johnson wrote, "A man accustomed to
hear only the echo of his own sentiments, soon bars all the
common avenues of delight, and has no part in the general
gratification of mankind." And he is a guy I'd want in my play
group.
I telecommute full time for my job as a copy editor for a
large business Web site. I plan to spend a month in the
Caribbean. Is it ethical to do this without running it by my
supervisor? My online presence will remain the same; only my
physical location will change. -- Name Withheld
If your duties are truly unmoored to place -- you never drop
by the office to swipe supplies (I mean, consult with colleagues
face to face) -- then pack your laptop and sunscreen and head
south. Your supervisor has an interest in how, not where, you do
the job. Unless you anticipate a decline in the quality of your
work -- Antillean computer problems, cell phone vagaries,
cataracts and hurricanos that spout until they drench your
steeples and drown the cocks, sulfurous and thought-executing
fires, oak-cleaving thunderbolts or simply the Siren song of the
wi-fi-less beach -- I don't see why this is any of your
supervisor's business. But you might want to mention it: to give
information, not to get permission.
(Readers can direct their questions and comments by e-mail to
ethicist@nytimes.com. This column originates in
The New York Times Magazine.)
COPYRIGHT 2008 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
|