> In terms of priorities, it seems reasonable for medical exceptions (eg. "this child is allergic to the vaccination so is more likely to die if it is administe

> In terms of priorities, it seems reasonable for medical exceptions (eg. "this child is allergic to the vaccination so is more likely to die if it is administered") to come before religious ones ("my child won't suffer from an increased risk of harm [than other children receiving the vaccination] but I don't want the vaccine to be administered"). It's true that a child immunized against a religious objection won't be physically harmed, but I think that many people who have been forced to do things against their religious objections will tell you that the emotional harm of being forced to violate their religious beliefs is substantial. (Which is why there have been numerous cases throughout history of people who have died rather than violate their faith.) I know comparing physical harm to emotional harm is hard to do, but I think it's worth pointing out that the "what's the harm?" argument requires a more nuanced understanding of what both sides feel is at stake than is typically considered.