If a couple of parents or guardians of a child refuse to have it vaccinated, and the child then gets the disease, becomes a lifelong invalid or perhaps dies, then how will those responsible for the protection of the child perceive the situation? Do you not think that it will occur to them that it would have been a "lesser evil" if the child had been vaccinated and thereby saved from sickness and death?

From a purely historical point of view, one must also bow to the fact that vaccination has been the only means for humankind to get rid of cruel epidemics. How would humanity have overcome these if God had not let it discover the vaccine? In reality, the earth could have been totally depopulated without it.

Then we come to the question of whether it is right to let the animals suffer, or even to kill them, so that humans may be saved; but here I must answer that it holds true here, as in a multitude of other important questions in life, that whatever one does is an "evil". It is true that it is an "evil" to let the animals suffer for the sake of humans, but it is also an "evil" that humans should face a colossally deadly, disabling, cruel epidemic. If the death of an animal can save thousands of humans from disability or unnatural death, would it then not be the "lesser evil" to let the animal die? Indeed, even if it were only ten people or just five people or if it were maybe just one person, it would have had to be a very bad and quite insignificant person, if the death of the animal were not a "lesser evil" than the death of a human being. A human being has a greater mass of consciousness and thus represents a larger quantity of life than the animal. It can therefore to a greater extent than the animal serve life and be a joy and blessing for all living beings. Would it not therefore be more loving to save the greater quantity of life than to let it perish in order to save the less and more primitive and insignificant life? Or should we let millions of people die when they can be saved by the lives of an extremely small number of animals? Incidentally, this vaccination will mean only an extremely small, microscopic loss of life for the animals in relation to the massive killings of millions of animals inflicted on them by the human consumption of meat. Eating animal products, with the exception of milk and butter, is the cause of very much bloodshed. This form of nutrition serves no necessary purpose. It saves no human beings from an unnatural death or disability. On the contrary, it causes millions of people illness, sufferings of many different kinds, disability and a far too premature death. To this must be added the killing of all the animals that the people in question have thus quite unjustifiably been instrumental in causing. Here one must remember that it is absolutely not a vital necessity to eat animals. It is only a consequence of the types of superstition that today are humankind's greatest misfortune or corruption.

When the conduct of human beings becomes so refined that they no longer have the heart to eat meat and no longer have the heart to kill living beings, then their mental nature will become so pure that they will become totally immune to all those diseases against which they can defend themselves today only with the help of vaccines.

Whether the polio vaccination is required or not required in your particular case, dear Anon, I cannot tell you. But now I have given you a little insight into the cosmic structure of vaccination, its significance in general. I hope that you and your wife on the basis of this can feel confident about what is the "lesser evil" in the situation at hand, because only that can be the most loving and thus the absolutely right thing for your little girl.