ethical

U.S., Hungarian thought leaders share ethical concerns over mass migration #Catholic “The Crisis of Migration for Families and Nations” was the subject of a Feb. 4 symposium that brought together American and Hungarian thought leaders who share concerns about the phenomenon of mass migration and its impact on the common good of their respective nations. The event coincided with the release of a new paper titled “Migration and Ethics: The Axioms of a Christian Migration Policy” by the Budapest-based Axioma Center, a Christian think tank. The Catholic University of America’s Chad Pecknold (left) endorses the Hungarian think tank’s approach to Christian migration policy. | Credit: Ken Oliver-Méndez/EWTN News The paper, which was endorsed by Chad Pecknold, associate professor of systematic theology at The Catholic University of America, notes that “the Christian perspective on immigration has historically emphasized compassion and solidarity with refugees, along with a welcoming attitude towards foreigners.”However, the paper continues, the Christian perspective on immigration “also calls for a prudent balance between these values and the legitimate responsibility of rulers to protect their people.” In this context, the paper explains, “national security, cultural and moral traditions, the rule of law, public order, and social cohesion are all essential components of what constitutes the common good.” In the face of illegal immigration, the authors assert that “mass deportations may be a legitimate response to mass migration.”At the event, Samuel Samson, a senior adviser at the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, said he does not see large-scale migration as a “moral necessity” but rather the opposite.“It is actually fundamentally disordered and impacts the well-being and the common good of society,” he said. Samson said the Trump administration has sought to “shift the general narrative” about migration to bring this awareness to the fore.In the United States, more than 14% of the population was born outside the country. In the European Union (EU), nearly 10% of the population was born in a country that is not an EU member. The panel was moderated by the America First Policy Institute’s Kristen Ziccarelli (left) and included the participation of Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian (right). | Credit: Ken Oliver-Méndez/EWTN News For his part, Heritage Foundation Vice President for Economic and Domestic Policy Roger Severino contended that the United States is not essentially a “nation of immigrants” but “a country of pioneers who took on immigrants who bought into the ethos of the United States.”Addressing the issue of the assimilation of immigrants, Severino, who is Catholic and the son of Colombian immigrants, lamented that the “salad bowl” (as opposed to “melting pot”) concept of immigration encourages “separate independent cultures that, in practice, don’t even end up talking to each other.”Severino also faulted the largesse and abuses of the modern welfare state for not serving the interests of either the nation or immigrants.In his remarks, Pecknold reflected on the corrosion of the understanding of the family and the understanding of the nation. “A nation comes from a commonwealth of families that bring life,” he said.Pecknold said the wealth of nations is not simply the GDP but rather, in Christian terms, has been “providentially given” by God and said the erosion of borders, heritage, language, customs, and religion is an “attempt to deconstruct the very belief of God as the providential provider” of families and nations.Pecknold also contended that mass migration has negative impacts on family for both the immigrants and the native-born population.For migrants, he said “it almost inevitably breaks up the family,” with some leaving their home country and others staying behind or sometimes trying to enter illegally. He said it also hurts the American family by filling the workforce with cheap labor, saying: “You actually are taking jobs away from … young Americans who deserve those jobs.”Pecknold encouraged Christians to take into account the faith’s long tradition on the subject of immigration, citing St. Thomas Aquinas as a prime example. In the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas speaks about the need for assimilation and that danger could otherwise arise if someone who does “not yet having the common good firmly at heart” is given full citizenship.“Christians have to take some of these principles and think outside of the bounds of liberalism,” he said.USCCB approachThe United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has recently raised concerns on immigration that markedly differ from those presented at the Hungarian embassy symposium, particularly when it comes to the Trump administration’s mass deportation program.In November 2025, the bishops voted 216-5 to issue a special message rejecting “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.” It noted that Scripture commands Christians to care for vulnerable people, including “the stranger,” and said Catholic teaching instructs nations “to recognize the fundamental dignity of all persons, including immigrants.”The Catechism of the Catholic Church instructs prosperous nations “to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner.” It also instructs immigrants “to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”According to the catechism, political authorities can regulate immigration “for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible.”
Read More

U.S., Hungarian thought leaders share ethical concerns over mass migration #Catholic “The Crisis of Migration for Families and Nations” was the subject of a Feb. 4 symposium that brought together American and Hungarian thought leaders who share concerns about the phenomenon of mass migration and its impact on the common good of their respective nations. The event coincided with the release of a new paper titled “Migration and Ethics: The Axioms of a Christian Migration Policy” by the Budapest-based Axioma Center, a Christian think tank. The Catholic University of America’s Chad Pecknold (left) endorses the Hungarian think tank’s approach to Christian migration policy. | Credit: Ken Oliver-Méndez/EWTN News The paper, which was endorsed by Chad Pecknold, associate professor of systematic theology at The Catholic University of America, notes that “the Christian perspective on immigration has historically emphasized compassion and solidarity with refugees, along with a welcoming attitude towards foreigners.”However, the paper continues, the Christian perspective on immigration “also calls for a prudent balance between these values and the legitimate responsibility of rulers to protect their people.” In this context, the paper explains, “national security, cultural and moral traditions, the rule of law, public order, and social cohesion are all essential components of what constitutes the common good.” In the face of illegal immigration, the authors assert that “mass deportations may be a legitimate response to mass migration.”At the event, Samuel Samson, a senior adviser at the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, said he does not see large-scale migration as a “moral necessity” but rather the opposite.“It is actually fundamentally disordered and impacts the well-being and the common good of society,” he said. Samson said the Trump administration has sought to “shift the general narrative” about migration to bring this awareness to the fore.In the United States, more than 14% of the population was born outside the country. In the European Union (EU), nearly 10% of the population was born in a country that is not an EU member. The panel was moderated by the America First Policy Institute’s Kristen Ziccarelli (left) and included the participation of Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian (right). | Credit: Ken Oliver-Méndez/EWTN News For his part, Heritage Foundation Vice President for Economic and Domestic Policy Roger Severino contended that the United States is not essentially a “nation of immigrants” but “a country of pioneers who took on immigrants who bought into the ethos of the United States.”Addressing the issue of the assimilation of immigrants, Severino, who is Catholic and the son of Colombian immigrants, lamented that the “salad bowl” (as opposed to “melting pot”) concept of immigration encourages “separate independent cultures that, in practice, don’t even end up talking to each other.”Severino also faulted the largesse and abuses of the modern welfare state for not serving the interests of either the nation or immigrants.In his remarks, Pecknold reflected on the corrosion of the understanding of the family and the understanding of the nation. “A nation comes from a commonwealth of families that bring life,” he said.Pecknold said the wealth of nations is not simply the GDP but rather, in Christian terms, has been “providentially given” by God and said the erosion of borders, heritage, language, customs, and religion is an “attempt to deconstruct the very belief of God as the providential provider” of families and nations.Pecknold also contended that mass migration has negative impacts on family for both the immigrants and the native-born population.For migrants, he said “it almost inevitably breaks up the family,” with some leaving their home country and others staying behind or sometimes trying to enter illegally. He said it also hurts the American family by filling the workforce with cheap labor, saying: “You actually are taking jobs away from … young Americans who deserve those jobs.”Pecknold encouraged Christians to take into account the faith’s long tradition on the subject of immigration, citing St. Thomas Aquinas as a prime example. In the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas speaks about the need for assimilation and that danger could otherwise arise if someone who does “not yet having the common good firmly at heart” is given full citizenship.“Christians have to take some of these principles and think outside of the bounds of liberalism,” he said.USCCB approachThe United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has recently raised concerns on immigration that markedly differ from those presented at the Hungarian embassy symposium, particularly when it comes to the Trump administration’s mass deportation program.In November 2025, the bishops voted 216-5 to issue a special message rejecting “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.” It noted that Scripture commands Christians to care for vulnerable people, including “the stranger,” and said Catholic teaching instructs nations “to recognize the fundamental dignity of all persons, including immigrants.”The Catechism of the Catholic Church instructs prosperous nations “to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner.” It also instructs immigrants “to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”According to the catechism, political authorities can regulate immigration “for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible.”

unitedyam

A Hungarian think tank’s new paper “Migration and Ethics: The Axioms of a Christian Migration Policy” prompts a meeting of the minds.

Read More
Catholic doctors and ethicists react to CDC’s revised childhood vaccine schedule #Catholic Credit: CDC/Debora Cartagena Jan 12, 2026 / 06:00 am (CNA). Catholic medical professionals and ethicists had mixed reactions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) announcement last week that it has revised the recommended childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule.In a press release on Jan. 5, the CDC announced a revised recommended childhood immunization schedule, which reduces the number of universally recommended vaccines from 18 to 11. It retains routine recommendations for all children against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus (HPV), and varicella (chickenpox).Vaccines for rotavirus, influenza, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal disease, and RSV now shift to recommendations for high-risk groups or after “shared clinical decision-making” between providers and families.According to a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo, the CDC “applies shared clinical decision-making recommendations when evidence indicates that individuals may benefit from vaccination based on an analysis of the individual’s characteristics, values, and preferences, the provider’s medical judgment, and the characteristics of the vaccine being considered.”Insurance companies must continue to cover all vaccines.The changes come after President Donald Trump directed the heads of the CDC and HHS in December 2025 to “review best practices from peer, developed nations regarding childhood vaccination recommendations and the scientific evidence underlying those practices” and to make changes accordingly.After reviewing the vaccination practices of 20 peer nations, a scientific assessment found that “the U.S. is a global outlier among developed nations in both the number of diseases addressed in its routine childhood vaccination schedule and the total number of recommended doses but does not have higher vaccination rates than such countries.”“Science demands continuous evaluation,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), said in the CDC press release. “This decision commits NIH, CDC, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to gold standard science, greater transparency, and ongoing reassessment as new data emerge.”Dr. Tim Millea, chair of the health care policy committee at the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), welcomed the changes, telling CNA that he thought the CDC approached the revisions “in a very logical way.”“There has been a huge drop in trust surrounding vaccines since the COVID-19 pandemic,” Millea said. “The suggestions during COVID that the science was ‘settled’ rubbed a lot of us the wrong way.”“The loudest critics of these new recommendations say this is ideology over science,” he said. “Science is a process, not an end. If we need more evidence, let’s get it,” he said, pointing out Bhattacharya’s call for “gold standard” science and “ongoing reassessment.”Millea, a retired orthopedic surgeon, said he has confidence that Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty Makary, head of the FDA, are “not going to let ideology get ahead of science.”The president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), John Di Camillo, told CNA in a statement regarding the updated immunization recommendations: “The people look to public health authorities precisely for this kind of guidance, which is responsive to continually evolving research, ongoing discussions among professionals in the medical field, and ethical principles that promote the common good, respect the dignity of the human person, and limit the interference of financial and ideological conflicts.”‘Let those closest to the children make the decisions’Millea acknowledged that critics of the CDC’s revised recommendations say comparing the U.S. vaccine schedule to that of much smaller, more homogeneous nations such as Denmark is like “comparing apples to oranges.”However, he pointed out that the CDC’s revised schedule is simply a recommendation, and each of the 50 U.S. states is free to do what it deems best. “It’s like 50 laboratories. Let’s see what works the best.”Invoking the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, Millea said “let those closest to the children who are getting the vaccinations make the decisions.”“One of the positive aspects of the pandemic is that now we can take a step back and we’re questioning, not because something may be wrong, but maybe because it could be improved upon,” Millea said.John F. Brehany, executive vice president and director of Institutional Relations at the NCBC, told CNA that “the new schedule appears to have been designed with good intent; that is, … to have gained public trust in the absence of mandates and to have contributed to population health outcomes that meet or exceed those of the U.S.”“The new schedule does not take a ‘one size fits all’ approach but rather structures recommendations based on the nature of the diseases, vaccines in question, and characteristics of the children or patients who may receive them,” he continued. “This approach appears to be well-founded and to provide a sound foundation for respecting the dignity and rights of every unique human person.”This will ‘sow more confusion’Dr. Gwyneth Spaeder, a Catholic pediatrician in North Carolina, did not welcome the changes to the immunization schedule.While she acknowledged that the damage to trust in institutions was substantial after the COVID-19 pandemic, she thinks the issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine’s safety and efficacy “cannot be compared” with the decades of studies demonstrating the safety of common children’s immunizations.“It is not the same moral calculus,” she said.She does not believe revising the immunization schedule this way will restore trust in institutions, which she said might take “years or even generations” to rebuild.This method will “sow more confusion,” Spaeder said. “Instead of trying to rebuild trust in transparent, evidence-based practices, we have created a situation where everyone is told different things … For this child, we think this schedule is the best, for that child, there’s a different one. That’s not how public health works.”She also said that comparing the homogeneous, relatively tiny population of 6 million in Denmark to that of the diverse population of 340 million in the U.S. is “a false comparison.”“Their children are at less risk from falling through the cracks and contracting these diseases we try to vaccinate against,” she said, noting the protective public health effects of Denmark’s universal health care and generous parental leave policies.“The children who will be most harmed in the U.S. are the underserved,” Spaeder said. “That’s being lost in this conversation. We can have a lot of high-level political arguments, but I am most concerned about my patients from single-parent homes who attend day care from young ages, or who are born to mothers who don’t have adequate prenatal care.”“They will lose out the most from not being protected from these diseases.”
Read More

Catholic doctors and ethicists react to CDC’s revised childhood vaccine schedule #Catholic Credit: CDC/Debora Cartagena Jan 12, 2026 / 06:00 am (CNA). Catholic medical professionals and ethicists had mixed reactions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) announcement last week that it has revised the recommended childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule.In a press release on Jan. 5, the CDC announced a revised recommended childhood immunization schedule, which reduces the number of universally recommended vaccines from 18 to 11. It retains routine recommendations for all children against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus (HPV), and varicella (chickenpox).Vaccines for rotavirus, influenza, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal disease, and RSV now shift to recommendations for high-risk groups or after “shared clinical decision-making” between providers and families.According to a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo, the CDC “applies shared clinical decision-making recommendations when evidence indicates that individuals may benefit from vaccination based on an analysis of the individual’s characteristics, values, and preferences, the provider’s medical judgment, and the characteristics of the vaccine being considered.”Insurance companies must continue to cover all vaccines.The changes come after President Donald Trump directed the heads of the CDC and HHS in December 2025 to “review best practices from peer, developed nations regarding childhood vaccination recommendations and the scientific evidence underlying those practices” and to make changes accordingly.After reviewing the vaccination practices of 20 peer nations, a scientific assessment found that “the U.S. is a global outlier among developed nations in both the number of diseases addressed in its routine childhood vaccination schedule and the total number of recommended doses but does not have higher vaccination rates than such countries.”“Science demands continuous evaluation,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), said in the CDC press release. “This decision commits NIH, CDC, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to gold standard science, greater transparency, and ongoing reassessment as new data emerge.”Dr. Tim Millea, chair of the health care policy committee at the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), welcomed the changes, telling CNA that he thought the CDC approached the revisions “in a very logical way.”“There has been a huge drop in trust surrounding vaccines since the COVID-19 pandemic,” Millea said. “The suggestions during COVID that the science was ‘settled’ rubbed a lot of us the wrong way.”“The loudest critics of these new recommendations say this is ideology over science,” he said. “Science is a process, not an end. If we need more evidence, let’s get it,” he said, pointing out Bhattacharya’s call for “gold standard” science and “ongoing reassessment.”Millea, a retired orthopedic surgeon, said he has confidence that Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty Makary, head of the FDA, are “not going to let ideology get ahead of science.”The president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), John Di Camillo, told CNA in a statement regarding the updated immunization recommendations: “The people look to public health authorities precisely for this kind of guidance, which is responsive to continually evolving research, ongoing discussions among professionals in the medical field, and ethical principles that promote the common good, respect the dignity of the human person, and limit the interference of financial and ideological conflicts.”‘Let those closest to the children make the decisions’Millea acknowledged that critics of the CDC’s revised recommendations say comparing the U.S. vaccine schedule to that of much smaller, more homogeneous nations such as Denmark is like “comparing apples to oranges.”However, he pointed out that the CDC’s revised schedule is simply a recommendation, and each of the 50 U.S. states is free to do what it deems best. “It’s like 50 laboratories. Let’s see what works the best.”Invoking the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, Millea said “let those closest to the children who are getting the vaccinations make the decisions.”“One of the positive aspects of the pandemic is that now we can take a step back and we’re questioning, not because something may be wrong, but maybe because it could be improved upon,” Millea said.John F. Brehany, executive vice president and director of Institutional Relations at the NCBC, told CNA that “the new schedule appears to have been designed with good intent; that is, … to have gained public trust in the absence of mandates and to have contributed to population health outcomes that meet or exceed those of the U.S.”“The new schedule does not take a ‘one size fits all’ approach but rather structures recommendations based on the nature of the diseases, vaccines in question, and characteristics of the children or patients who may receive them,” he continued. “This approach appears to be well-founded and to provide a sound foundation for respecting the dignity and rights of every unique human person.”This will ‘sow more confusion’Dr. Gwyneth Spaeder, a Catholic pediatrician in North Carolina, did not welcome the changes to the immunization schedule.While she acknowledged that the damage to trust in institutions was substantial after the COVID-19 pandemic, she thinks the issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine’s safety and efficacy “cannot be compared” with the decades of studies demonstrating the safety of common children’s immunizations.“It is not the same moral calculus,” she said.She does not believe revising the immunization schedule this way will restore trust in institutions, which she said might take “years or even generations” to rebuild.This method will “sow more confusion,” Spaeder said. “Instead of trying to rebuild trust in transparent, evidence-based practices, we have created a situation where everyone is told different things … For this child, we think this schedule is the best, for that child, there’s a different one. That’s not how public health works.”She also said that comparing the homogeneous, relatively tiny population of 6 million in Denmark to that of the diverse population of 340 million in the U.S. is “a false comparison.”“Their children are at less risk from falling through the cracks and contracting these diseases we try to vaccinate against,” she said, noting the protective public health effects of Denmark’s universal health care and generous parental leave policies.“The children who will be most harmed in the U.S. are the underserved,” Spaeder said. “That’s being lost in this conversation. We can have a lot of high-level political arguments, but I am most concerned about my patients from single-parent homes who attend day care from young ages, or who are born to mothers who don’t have adequate prenatal care.”“They will lose out the most from not being protected from these diseases.”

unitedyam

Credit: CDC/Debora Cartagena

Jan 12, 2026 / 06:00 am (CNA).

Catholic medical professionals and ethicists had mixed reactions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) announcement last week that it has revised the recommended childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule.

In a press release on Jan. 5, the CDC announced a revised recommended childhood immunization schedule, which reduces the number of universally recommended vaccines from 18 to 11. It retains routine recommendations for all children against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus (HPV), and varicella (chickenpox).

Vaccines for rotavirus, influenza, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal disease, and RSV now shift to recommendations for high-risk groups or after “shared clinical decision-making” between providers and families.

According to a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo, the CDC “applies shared clinical decision-making recommendations when evidence indicates that individuals may benefit from vaccination based on an analysis of the individual’s characteristics, values, and preferences, the provider’s medical judgment, and the characteristics of the vaccine being considered.”

Insurance companies must continue to cover all vaccines.

The changes come after President Donald Trump directed the heads of the CDC and HHS in December 2025 to “review best practices from peer, developed nations regarding childhood vaccination recommendations and the scientific evidence underlying those practices” and to make changes accordingly.

After reviewing the vaccination practices of 20 peer nations, a scientific assessment found that “the U.S. is a global outlier among developed nations in both the number of diseases addressed in its routine childhood vaccination schedule and the total number of recommended doses but does not have higher vaccination rates than such countries.”

“Science demands continuous evaluation,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), said in the CDC press release. “This decision commits NIH, CDC, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to gold standard science, greater transparency, and ongoing reassessment as new data emerge.”

Dr. Tim Millea, chair of the health care policy committee at the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), welcomed the changes, telling CNA that he thought the CDC approached the revisions “in a very logical way.”

“There has been a huge drop in trust surrounding vaccines since the COVID-19 pandemic,” Millea said. “The suggestions during COVID that the science was ‘settled’ rubbed a lot of us the wrong way.”

“The loudest critics of these new recommendations say this is ideology over science,” he said. “Science is a process, not an end. If we need more evidence, let’s get it,” he said, pointing out Bhattacharya’s call for “gold standard” science and “ongoing reassessment.”

Millea, a retired orthopedic surgeon, said he has confidence that Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty Makary, head of the FDA, are “not going to let ideology get ahead of science.”

The president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), John Di Camillo, told CNA in a statement regarding the updated immunization recommendations: “The people look to public health authorities precisely for this kind of guidance, which is responsive to continually evolving research, ongoing discussions among professionals in the medical field, and ethical principles that promote the common good, respect the dignity of the human person, and limit the interference of financial and ideological conflicts.”

‘Let those closest to the children make the decisions’

Millea acknowledged that critics of the CDC’s revised recommendations say comparing the U.S. vaccine schedule to that of much smaller, more homogeneous nations such as Denmark is like “comparing apples to oranges.”

However, he pointed out that the CDC’s revised schedule is simply a recommendation, and each of the 50 U.S. states is free to do what it deems best. “It’s like 50 laboratories. Let’s see what works the best.”

Invoking the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, Millea said “let those closest to the children who are getting the vaccinations make the decisions.”

“One of the positive aspects of the pandemic is that now we can take a step back and we’re questioning, not because something may be wrong, but maybe because it could be improved upon,” Millea said.

John F. Brehany, executive vice president and director of Institutional Relations at the NCBC, told CNA that “the new schedule appears to have been designed with good intent; that is, … to have gained public trust in the absence of mandates and to have contributed to population health outcomes that meet or exceed those of the U.S.”

“The new schedule does not take a ‘one size fits all’ approach but rather structures recommendations based on the nature of the diseases, vaccines in question, and characteristics of the children or patients who may receive them,” he continued. “This approach appears to be well-founded and to provide a sound foundation for respecting the dignity and rights of every unique human person.”

This will ‘sow more confusion’

Dr. Gwyneth Spaeder, a Catholic pediatrician in North Carolina, did not welcome the changes to the immunization schedule.

While she acknowledged that the damage to trust in institutions was substantial after the COVID-19 pandemic, she thinks the issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine’s safety and efficacy “cannot be compared” with the decades of studies demonstrating the safety of common children’s immunizations.

“It is not the same moral calculus,” she said.

She does not believe revising the immunization schedule this way will restore trust in institutions, which she said might take “years or even generations” to rebuild.

This method will “sow more confusion,” Spaeder said. “Instead of trying to rebuild trust in transparent, evidence-based practices, we have created a situation where everyone is told different things … For this child, we think this schedule is the best, for that child, there’s a different one. That’s not how public health works.”

She also said that comparing the homogeneous, relatively tiny population of 6 million in Denmark to that of the diverse population of 340 million in the U.S. is “a false comparison.”

“Their children are at less risk from falling through the cracks and contracting these diseases we try to vaccinate against,” she said, noting the protective public health effects of Denmark’s universal health care and generous parental leave policies.

“The children who will be most harmed in the U.S. are the underserved,” Spaeder said. “That’s being lost in this conversation. We can have a lot of high-level political arguments, but I am most concerned about my patients from single-parent homes who attend day care from young ages, or who are born to mothers who don’t have adequate prenatal care.”

“They will lose out the most from not being protected from these diseases.”

Read More