Medical Decisions Should Be Guided by Evidence, Not Executive Order

There is a principle that should transcend politics - decisions about the health of our children should be grounded in the best available scientific evidence and made through trusted conversations between families and their health care professionals. 

The New Hampshire Medical Society believes deeply that medical recommendations should be continuously examined as evidence evolves. We also believe patients and families should be active participants in decisions about their health. It is precisely because we hold those principles that we are speaking out about the August 10, 2026 Executive Order, “Delivering Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations for Americans.” 

The Executive Order establishes consequential medical and public-health policies that should be reached through a transparent and inclusive scientific review process—not presidential directive. 

Science must remain a process 

Medicine changes because science changes. For generations, vaccine recommendations have been built through examination of disease prevalence, vaccine effectiveness, adverse events, epidemiology, clinical studies and ongoing safety surveillance. A process that is rigorous, transparent and a-political, regardless of which political party occupies the White House. 

Which is why it is unprecedented for a President to modify a clinical standard of care by Executive Order. Elected leaders unquestionably have an obligation to oversee the funding of research, ensure that important vaccine safety protocols are adhered to, maintain strong surveillance systems, protect access to care, and demand transparency from our public-health institutions.  

As physicians, we closely monitor scientific and medical advances, childhood vaccine schedules, and individual patient needs in order to determine whether an individual child should receive a particular vaccine. These decisions belong first within the scientific process and ultimately within the relationship among patients, parents and trusted health professionals. 

More visits do not necessarily mean better medicine 

The recommendation that childhood vaccines be administered at separate medical visits is particularly concerning for those of us who understand vaccines and the realities facing families. The Measles Mumps and Rubella vaccine (MMR) were combined and approved by the FDA in 1971. This has been an effective public health measure ensuring fewer injections and fewer missed doses. Global scientific data shows that the combined immunization formula has saved millions of lives, with no connection to long term harm. 

But beyond the science lies a practical question: Does a policy developed in Washington adequately reflect what implementation looks like in Colebrook, Berlin, Claremont, Manchester, or dozens of other communities across our state? New Hampshire is a largely rural state. Many families travel significant distances for care, requiring parents to take time away from work, and children to miss school.  

Every additional unnecessary appointment has a cost—transportation, lost wages, missed school, additional copayments in some circumstances, and another opportunity for a child to fall behind on immunizations altogether. Good public-health policy should reduce unnecessary barriers to care, not create them. 

Parental choice requires reliable information 

Parents have an essential role in decisions affecting their children. But genuine informed consent requires more than choice. It requires accurate information about the benefits a vaccine provides, what risks it carries, what uncertainties exist, and what may happen if their child remains unvaccinated. Parents should ask difficult questions and they deserve thoughtful evidence-based medical advice from their treatment providers.  

Physicians have these conversations every day. Shared decision-making is not a political slogan. It is a clinical process built on trust. At a time when Americans already struggle to determine which health information they can trust, we should be leaning on independent scientific institutions—not further blurring the boundary between political authority and medical evidence. 

New Hampshire should protect evidence-based medicine 

We urge New Hampshire policy makers to approach policy changes cautiously. Our state has a proud tradition of independence and an obligation to examine federal recommendations critically prior to incorporating them into state policy. 

We urge New Hampshire policymakers to ensure that childhood immunization policies are based on high-quality scientific evidence that includes meaningful input from physicians, pediatricians, family physicians, infectious-disease experts, public-health professionals, parents and communities. We also urge policymakers to protect access to vaccines for families who, in consultation with their physicians, choose them.  

The question before us is larger than any single vaccine - it is also about how we, as Americans, establish good public policy and protect access to medical care. If an administration can supersede medical and scientific process with executive direction, it raises concerns about public policies related to cancer screening, reproductive health, cardiovascular prevention, mental-health treatment and many other areas of medicine. That should concern Americans across the political spectrum. 

Keep medicine where it belongs 

There is room for vigorous debate about public health. There is room to demand better research, stronger safety monitoring and greater transparency from our institutions. Science itself depends upon questioning. But the answer to concerns about scientific institutions is better science—not political substitution for science. 

New Hampshire’s physicians will continue doing what our patients entrust us to do: listen carefully to patients and families, evaluate the evidence, explain benefits and risks, answer their questions and recommend the care we believe gives their children the best opportunity to live healthy lives. We ask that our President protect that process. They should not prescribe it. 

The New Hampshire Medical Society represents 3,000 physicians across New Hampshire and advocates for the health of our patients, our communities and the medical profession.