SALT LAKE CITY — Utah lawmakers asked state health officials Monday why parents seeking personal exemptions to immunizing their children are asked to sign a statement holding them responsible for any "risk" incurred by doing so.

The statement in question is a line on a form that says, "I understand I am responsible for the risk of not vaccinating this child."

Some legislators say they're worried the statement passes on legal liability to parents, which is not required or provided for under state law.

"Many see (the language) as an assumption of risk, an admission against interest that could be used against them in a future legal proceeding if there were charges of child endangerment, child abuse, things of that nature," Rep. Brian Greene, R-Pleasant Grove, said at a meeting of the Utah Legislature's Administrative Rules Review Committee.

Greene, co-chairman of the committee, was speaking to Joseph Miner, executive director of the Utah Department of Health.

The health department adopted the statement on immunization exemption forms in July 2016 after consulting with local health agencies and others, said Amy West, an attorney with the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel.

Greene said complaints have been raised by parents who say they submitted signed statements requesting an exemption on religious grounds, but schools wouldn't accept those. Instead, the schools required that parents fill out a form that could be obtained at a local health department, he said.

Miner said the state health department until recently had not been aware of a wrinkle in the law that allows parents seeking a religious exemption for immunizations to turn in signed statements at schools without needing a form from a local health department. The Utah Department of Health has since made note of that part of the law, he said.

"They can write (their religious exemption request) on a napkin or any kind of written statement," Miner said.

Greene voiced concerns that such a misunderstanding of the law's reach and applicability may have led to some parents' lawful requests for immunization exemptions being denied.

He also took issue with the legal dangers posed by the statement accepting responsibility for risk. Passing on such risk to parents in writing would be the responsibility of the language of the immunization law, but the law's text doesn't extend that far, Greene said.

"In this committee, we're looking at whether or not the policy is being implemented as authorized by state framework or whether it assumes authority that exceeds the state framework," he said.

Miner said he would be willing to adjust the language on the form to "maybe just say, 'I'm responsible for not vaccinating my child,' and remove the word 'risk.'"

Greene said he would like the health department to go further and change the language to something like, "'I understand the information I have been provided,' or, 'I have been provided information related to this issue and have read it.'"

Greene and Miner agreed that the form obtained from local health departments is required by state statute to be signed by those seeking an exemption for reasons defined as personal, but not religious.

Related

Lawmakers endorse compromise on student vaccination bills

A Provo lawmaker says his three-bill package to lessen restrictions on parents who choose not to vaccinate their children couldn't have been drafted without a massive compromise.

Miner acknowledged that it's possible the policy confusion has led some parents to claim religious exemptions when they were really for other reasons, simply so they wouldn't have to sign the form saddling them with legal responsibility.

Greene said he's hopeful that an updated immunization exemption law, which takes effect July 1, 2018, will remedy that issue.

"(It) lumps religious and personal belief back together again," he said.

Sen. Jim Dabakis joined fellow Salt Lake Democrat Sen. Gene Davis, and Rep. Carol Spackman Moss, D-Holladay, in saying he doesn't have a problem with the statement the health department has been requiring parents to sign. Doing so, Dabakis said, falls within the purview of the agency.

"The state, in my perspective, is contorting … in a pretzel to give (parents who choose not to immunize their children) their free right to do whatever they want, even though they may not only be contaminating their kids, but others," he said.

Greene was adamant that he wasn't addressing whether it was a good idea overall to require parents to accept more risk and legal responsibility for exempting their children from immunizations, but rather discussing whether the state health department is authorized to do so under Utah law. Email: blockhart@deseretnews.com Twitter: @benlockhartnews

Related topics