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

[Mrs Hex]

Again with personal insults. I joined this thread as I had some personal reasons and it is a subject I feel passionate about.

I have tried reasoned argument and emotional and you appear to be spoiling for a fight.

I will simply state that without the vaccination programme as it is now a number of children would have died. I do not have statistics as you cannot gage stats on things that have not happened but we were measurably at a point where more illnesses would have gone the way of smallpox and that cannot be seen as a bad thing.

I will continue to be vocal because I genuinely believe that those parents who choose not to vaccinate are putting their own children AND those of other people (yes including mine) at risk. Which is, again in my opinion, bad parenting.

Give me the choice and yes I'd much prefer that Nathan NOT be around unvaccinated children.

[ZaO]

tl;dr: if you have diabetes, I hope you die, since your survival stems from experiments on pigs

Well luckily I would consider myself to have a very low chance of diabetes due to my lifestyle. But this just goes to show the difference in compassion between us. How is it to live as such a bitter and hateful human? We're all going to die, don't you know?

[ZaO]

Again with personal insults. I joined this thread as I had some personal reasons and it is a subject I feel passionate about.

I have tried reasoned argument and emotional and you appear to be spoiling for a fight.

I will simply state that without the vaccination programme as it is now a number of children would have died. I do not have statistics as you cannot gage stats on things that have not happened but we were measurably at a point where more illnesses would have gone the way of smallpox and that cannot be seen as a bad thing.

I will continue to be vocal because I genuinely believe that those parents who choose not to vaccinate are putting their own children AND those of other people (yes including mine) at risk. Which is, again in my opinion, bad parenting.

Give me the choice and yes I'd much prefer that Nathan NOT be around unvaccinated children.

Are you referring to me? I have not dished out any personal insults. I have called what I believe to be narrow mindedness and ignorance when I feel I've seen it. It's ok if people feel I am wrong on that. But how else should I word such things? If you look through this thread, I think a lot more insults have been thrown my way. You think I'm looking for a fight because I won't just give in an go with the majority opinion? I am trying to have a reasonable discussion. I think you are likely misinterpreting the intent of my words.

[Agent]

Yes I have. One alternative is don't test on animals. Might not be viable to you, but it is to others. Definitely viable to animals. Testing on humans is another.

Given that all most all medicine is required, by law, to have an animal testing phase in the west, how does this fit in with you taking medication?

Would you volunteer for human testing to be done on you? or your children? If not, how should we progress as a race in furthering ourself in medical advances?

[ZaO]

Given that all most all medicine is required, by law, to have an animal testing phase in the west, how does this fit in with you taking medication?

Would you volunteer for human testing to be done on you? or your children? If not, how should we progress as a race in furthering ourself in medical advances?

Do you understand that I'm trying to give people an insight into why others may not want vaccines, other than it just being based on whether they believe they are safe or not? I am trying to demonstrate a view that some people may be overlooking. I'm not trying to argue my lifestyle against other peoples lifestyles. As for me personally, I try to avoid all man made drugs. I'm not keen on having them in my body. I'm not trying to force anyone not to take them, and I don't want them forced into me either.

I may volunteer for testing depending on who's doing it and obviously what it is that is being tested. Lots of things to consider in such a choice. I'm not sure you're asking the right guy if you want a scientific answer about how else we should further medical sciences. I don't know enough about medical science to know. I could only speculate based on any articles I may read. I'm not going to pretend I have the answer to the future of medical science. But abolishing some of the methods as we know them, will be part of our advance in another aspect of human evolution. And to anyone who wishes I die for saying what I've said, well may you come back in your next life as a lab animal, when I or others like I will be speaking out for you.

[Saracen]

The "All Trials" argument is a distraction method, being used by the antivax members of the forum, after their previous efforts to persuade people against vaccinating their children failed.

Whilst the availability of all trial results is an important issue, it has been introduced into the argument for no reason other than as a distraction.

No, it hasn't, because I have not argued against, or for, vaccination. That's not my point at all.

Nor is it a distraction.

The original question was about people being held legally responsible for not vaccinating. In other words, compelled to vaccinate.

When it is expected that parents should be legally compelled to inject their children, it is only reasonable to do so if ALL evidence is unequivocal that it is always a benefit, and as a large proportion of trials are not published, we simply cannot know what that half of the evidence says.

This is NOT, as you claim, an argument against vaccination. It is an argument for two things :-

- forcing publication of all trial results, and
- not compelling vaccination.

I am not anti-vaccination. I am anti-compulsion when half the evidence is missing.

What other people may be arguing is another matter.

But to try to dismiss that as a distraction won't wash.

[directhex]

Well luckily I would consider myself to have a very low chance of diabetes due to my lifestyle. But this just goes to show the difference in compassion between us. How is it to live as such a bitter and hateful human? We're all going to die, don't you know?

You've (intentionally) missed my point.

When you say "don't test on animals, it's evil", type 1 diabetics are an easy group to point out that you're throwing under the bus to support your vaunted principles. When you say "don't test on animals" you're telling type 1 diabetics "I don't think you deserve a normal life", because human analog insulin was only developed after years of bovine and porcine insulin being the only options for those folks to control their disease.

Countless other medications which have helped to sustain life have come as a result of studies which, at some stage, have relied on animals. Is it barbaric? Yup. Is there an alternative? No, not really. All the computational simulation in he world won't tell you how complex biological systems interoperate when exposed to an experimental drug.

My stance on the administering of medication is this: everyone could potentially be brilliant. A child born to regular parents anywhere in the world could be the catalyst behind discovery of our next great human advance. But we'll never know what that was if they contract an otherwise avoidable disease and end up handicapped or dead. Boom, all that potential snuffed out.

[directhex]

No, it hasn't, because I have not argued against, or for, vaccination. That's not my point at all.

Nor is it a distraction.

You weren't the one to introduce the point, that was billythewiz. After we failed to bite on his links to texts by not-a-doctor Wakefield.

And, again, quoting Dr Goldacre (whom I assume billythewiz regrets invoking by now):

the reality is, there are serious problems with medical results reporting. there's no reason to be more worried about vaccines than any other form of treatment, tho.

[peterb]

You weren't the one to introduce the point, that was billythewiz. After we failed to bite on his links to texts by not-a-doctor Wakefield.

And, again, quoting Dr Goldacre (whom I assume billythewiz regrets invoking by now):

Dr Goldacre goes a bit further than that and asserts that the MMR story is essentially a media driven hoax!

http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/

[directhex]

Dr Goldacre goes a bit further than that and asserts that the MMR story is essentially a media driven hoax!

http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/

Well, it is.

[ZaO]

You've (intentionally) missed my point.

No. You definitely said "if you have diabetes, I hope you die". I'm not upset about you saying that. I like free speech. But I have been told off for much more petty things on this site. You are abusing your power as a mod (assuming you're a mod due to the colour of your username text). I'm sure you would find some punishment for me if I told you, or anyone else here that I hope they died. But this is what a lot of people in some kind of authority like to do, abuse their power. I know it's hard to reason with people like that. Almost reminds me of some talks I've had with police. It's like they're foaming at the mouth, getting drunk on the power they have. They know they can talk to you like trash, but if you answer back they can give you a fine for speaking your mind, or even more than that.

[Saracen]

You weren't the one to introduce the point, that was billythewiz. After we failed to bite on his links to texts by not-a-doctor Wakefield.

And, again, quoting Dr Goldacre (whom I assume billythewiz regrets invoking by now):

Nonetheless, I used the lack of published trials to make my point, and it wasn't a distraction.

[directhex]

I'm sure you would find some punishment for me if I told you, or anyone else here that I hope they died.

You did. That is my point. Your "I have wonderful principles and you're a meanie for not giving them the respect I think they're worth" argument can be summarized as "I want sick people to die", because that is the outcome of your point. Given the size of the forum readership, we inevitably have people on here who are only alive today as a result of medical research which at one point will have been animal-based. Those are the folks you would haphazardly allow to die, in the name of being "pure"

[ZaO]

You did. That is my point. Your "I have wonderful principles and you're a meanie for not giving them the respect I think they're worth" argument can be summarized as "I want sick people to die", because that is the outcome of your point. Given the size of the forum readership, we inevitably have people on here who are only alive today as a result of medical research which at one point will have been animal-based. Those are the folks you would haphazardly allow to die, in the name of being "pure"

Again, I am just trying to make people see another reason why people may not want vaccines. Other than it just being based on whether vaccines are safe or not. It's not about forcing my lifestyle on other people, you don't even know what my lifestyle is. I don't just speak for myself and my way of living all the time. I try to consider lots of things, lots of other peoples ways of living, when I form my views on things. But then a lot of people go straight on the defense and start speaking against what I said. While all I was doing is trying to do, was what I just said in the first 2 sentences. I think you're just trolling me now. But remember one thing. Your outlook on life may be that all actions humans take should ultimately be soley for the benefit of humans, while others do not. One route may be progression for you, for others it is not.

[TheAnimus]

You don't actually know what my lifestyle is, do you? You see, you guys are still being biased. You think I'm arguing my life outlook against yours. I am merely trying to demonstrate different views on life, and how they affect peoples decisions. Why something that works for you, doesn't work for everyone else. The point is not at all that I don't want to. "Herd immunity"? Lovely terminology. The affects of these vaccines are still clearly debated. Ignorance is much more harmful to us all.

So no, you haven't read up on the thread.

You've skipped the philosophy bits that are relivent, also ignoring the game theory components (co-operate or betray).

You just don't appear to grasp the idea that it effects everyone. Ultimately if 90% of people make the choice they want something, which 10% disagree with, that 90% is having its rights to health infringed by the minority.

So go over the previous posts, you'll find out why its called herd immunity too. The effects of these vaccines are not clearly debated, anymore than its clearly debated that having polio is bad for ones health. There will always be some people who pretend it is, as it furthers their agenda, it appears the media and wakefield are of that ilk. Plenty of the vacinations are not covered by patents, there isn't a conspiracy here.

[scaryjim]

Whether there's a conspiracy or not, this thread - the title, anyway - still implies removing parental - and therefore individual - choice over medical treatment. Leaving aside the question of whether vaccines are safe and the lack of proper reporting of clinical trials, I really don't see how you can think that's acceptable in an allegedly enlightened modern society.

Also, it's not like many parents are actually given a proper range of choices. When my stepkids were young my wife asked for separate vaccinations rather than combined MMR and was refused. Which gives you an idea of exactly how much the government cares about herd immunity - as opposed to, say, saving money.