Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?

[TheAnimus]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-2...n-laws/4769002

Boom!

You see this is the problem with the situation. Despite being pro mass vacination, I can't help but feal this isn't the way to do it.

It is generally considered very important for children to mix and play with other children. With this are you punishing the parent for been negligent, or punishing the child for having negligent parents?

[Willzzz]

But the point is that they won't. As soon as the problem comes up they will rush out and get their child vaccinated.

[Mrs Hex]

But you need to consider the health of the group as a whole. Not to mention the staff.

[wasabi]

But you need to consider the health of the group as a whole. Not to mention the staff.

True. But it is a fluffy way of dancing round the issue rather than forcing it. It might get most of the parents to do thi right thing - but... Suspect you'll end up with the plague kids going to wacko Steiner schools. So they end up with a rubbish education apart from being able to dance their name by age 11.

[peterb]

Other people's decisions to not vaccinate effect herd immunity - and that did (and still does) put my child at risk. Fortunately it wasn't any of those things and is some 'unknown virus' and he's completely recovered now; but if he had been that ill and someone talked to me about how vaccinations are evil I would have happily punched them - and would have done so on Wednesday.

And that is the point. An earlier poster made the point that his child had a condition that he claimed contra-indicated MMR which was why their child wasn't vaccinated - which is not unreasonable provided there IS general herd immunity - his child is getting (a reduced) level of protection from the fact that the general prevalence is lower because of mass immunisation.

On a personal note - I'm glad that your child is OK! Always a worrying time, especially waiting for a diagnosis.

[ZaO]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...thy-measles-mp

So apparently some parents are using homeopathy instead of medicine to vaccinate their children.

My question is, why don't we consider this child abuse or lack of care, and prosecute criminally if need be? If a parent were to let their child stray into the road naked on a cold winters day, it would certainly have the interests of social services.

Why do we allow people to put their children at such unnecessary risk, for something that is free?

I'll admit I haven't read any of the other posts in this thread. So I assume the conversation has evolved considerably. But to this - are you serious!? How ignorant. You would like people to be prosecuted for not letting the government inject their kids with chemicals that they/you don't understand? How do people get so narrow minded.. It's not abuse. Your child, your choice. How the hell do you even know you can trust these drugs. I don't. Also, you may have opposition to things such as animal testing. You don't want crap from people who profit out of such sickening behaviour injected into your child.

Do you realize what can happen if we allow the government to prosecute people for something like this? They can inject whatever the hell they want into anyone, and you have no say. Think about what you're saying. Stop living in such fear and bitterness.

[Mrs Hex]

Of course - there are children who are immuno-compromised or cannot be vaccinated for other medical related reasons - and that is what herd immunity is indeed FOR.

Ironically perhaps, I too shudder at the idea of prosecution - but perhaps then this is where the childcare question comes in - you don't want to vaccinate? Fine, don't expect to put other children/carers at risk. If they end up being homeschooled/sent to an odd school that is unfortunate, but needs of the many.

Vaccination is necessary and unless you have a damn good reason why you can't have it (and this is coming from a woman with a needle phobia and NO parent likes watching their child jabbed) you should.

[Saracen]

......did you really think there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? People dont believe everything they're told anymore.

I agree with people not believing everything they're told, and I don't want to go off-topic so if you want detail we can do it in a different thread, but as for WMD being in Iraq, anyone that believes there weren't any is really, seriously mis-informed. It is simply not in dispute that there were. Saddam admitted it, they were used in the Iraq/Iran was, again at Halabja, UN inspectors went in and inspected them, and monitored their destruction.

The issue is when they were there.

After Gulf War 1, Iraq agreed to the destruction of WMD. But Saddam ordered a number of weapons to be hidden from inspectors, to avoid destruction. That included, for instance, 85 missiles with a capability of reaching Tehran.

A year or two later, fearful that the US had discovered the deception and would use it to justify another invasion, Saddam ordered the "secret" destruction of these (chemical warhead) missiles, and "secret" included absolutely no paper trail to be created, let alone kept.

The source of this information? Very senior members of Saddam's cabinet.

Did Iraq have WMD? Yes, without any shadow of an iota of doubt.

Did he deceive inspectors and hide some from destruction? He did according to his own closest ministers.

Did he still have them by the time of Gulf War 2? Seems very doubtful, and if he did, an extensive and intensive search has failed to locate them, but he certainly had them earlier, and certainly spent years lying about what he had. He had for a long time lied about having them when we know he did, and then saying he didn't after deceiving inspectors according to his own ministers.

It is not that Iraq didn't have WMD, but that by the invasion, they had secretly destroyed their remaining arsenal, without admitting it to inspectors, or allowing verification.

[Shirty]

I was vaccinated, my partner was vaccinated and our progeny are and will continue to be vaccinated.

In answer to the thread title, in a word: yes.

With all the scientific research that has gotten us as far as we have, I feel that unless someone is genuinely informed better than the international scientific community (i.e. nobody) then they only have themselves to blame when their alternative methods go wrong.

[scaryjim]

In answer to the thread title, in a word: yes.

So doctors should have the final word in what treatment a patient receives? Or should individuals be allowed to refuse treatment?

Because essentially you're saying that parents shouldn't have a choice over the medical treatment of their children, and that's a pretty damn bold statement...

[ZaO]

So doctors should have the final word in what treatment a patient receives? Or should individuals be allowed to refuse treatment?

Because essentially you're saying that parents shouldn't have a choice over the medical treatment of their children, and that's a pretty damn bold statement...

Exactly. A lot of scared people here who want more and more anti freedom laws forced on people to make them feel safer. I hate to see the system working like this.

[Willzzz]

If people want to take advantage of community services then they should play their part, and if that means vaccinating their children for the good of the community as a whole then that doesn't seem unreasonable.

They still have a choice.

[wasabi]

I agree with people not believing everything they're told, and I don't want to go off-topic so if you want detail we can do it in a different thread, but as for WMD being in Iraq, anyone that believes there weren't any is really, seriously mis-informed.

This is the problem with the media again. People like to think there is a government cover-up / conspiracy. And if the Beeb and other press gives them fuel for the fire they lap it up. Simply mention cover-up and people jump on the bandwagon unquestioningly. Doing research into the background issues or the many shades of grey in most stories is too much for most.

[Mrs Hex]

Vaccinations protect society as a whole.

Every person has a responsibility to society.

And, could I look my child in the face if they caught one of these illnesses, and were left permanently scarred in some manner, because I did not vaccinate?

We know vaccination does not prevent the child catching it - but it makes the impact less severe.

Vaccination should be harder to get out of.

[Saracen]

This is the problem with the media again. People like to think there is a government cover-up / conspiracy. And if the Beeb and other press gives them fuel for the fire they lap it up. Simply mention cover-up and people jump on the bandwagon unquestioningly. Doing research into the background issues or the many shades of grey in most stories is too much for most.

True, especially in a spin-rich and fact-light (or fact free) environment.

But we've been 'had' by government, or it's various organs, far too often for even the mildly cynical and generally trusting to just swallow what they say with no questions. A classic example would be the current furore cover the CQC cover-up.


And politicians don't help, because they usually appear to be physiologically incapable of giving a direct answer to a simple question, and I've reached the point where I expect "what's your name" to be dealt with by a 5 minute demonstration of the better skills of Sir Humphrey Appleby, leaving me wondering what the hell he just said, and still not knowing what his/her name is.

Small wonder trust is minimal. You get dumped on often enough and you buy a poop-proof umbrella.

[Saracen]

....

Vaccination should be harder to get out of.

Perhaps so, but how far should the state go? If, despite pressure, parents still won't comply, do they call it abuse, take the kids off the parents and vaccinate them themselves? Do they send send several large police officers round to hold the parents down while a doctor injects their kids? Do we jail them? Levy big fines ..... which the affluent can just pay, but the poor can't?

We can educate, inform, pressure, etc, certainly, but just how should parents determined, perhaps for what they consider sound reasons, be "held legally accountable" if they won't?