Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
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.
Lots of things have the potential to affect everyone. There are decisions you make everyday about the things you buy, and in turn the companies you support. I bet there are lots of things about the way you live that I can link to suffering and criticise you on. I'm sure you could with me too.
You're just saying it's not still debated. As some of you seem to like using scientists in the field as the only point of reference, well there are scientists in the field of work that debate it - it is still debated. Not having access to all test results also leaves uncertainty for a lot of people. But you call that bad judgement. How do you feel when people keep bits of information from you and don't tell you the whole story on something? It can be hard to trust them huh.
Now I still want to ask, what would you like to be done with people who refuse vaccinations?
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
....
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.
....
Really? You're going with the argument that the interests of the majority wholly negate individual freedom over our own bodies, or in the case of kids, those for whom parents have responsibilty?
So .... when the NHS is spending lots of money on care for, what, the terminally ill, let's save the resources expended on them because the result is inevitable anyway, and they cannot contribute to society, so let's just forcibly euthanise them and spend the money on things more productive for the greater good?
What about the severely disabled? Maybe it's also in the greater good to dispose of them too, as they too tend to require disproportionate resources, that could be "better" spent on "the majority".
If we start with compulsory medical treatment by vaccinating now, we erode that sacrosanct principle that the mentally healthy cannot be forcibly medicated against their will, and where will that end up? Forcible sterilisation to combat over-population, "for the greater good"?
And exactly who gets to decide when forcing some medical treatment on you, or me, us "in the greater good"? And on what criteria?
Maybe it's in "the greater good" to use prisoners as lab test animals? We could, after all, shortcut a lot of preliminary testing before current (voluntary) human trials, benefitting the majority because we'd get life-saving drugs years, maybe a decade or more, earlier.
And never mind just prisoners, what about the homeless? After all, they aren't contributing members? And of course, there's drug addicts .... we could cut crime, and benefit the bulk of society if we just used them. And we could always fall back on a favourite if we run out of prisoners, and homeless etc., and just go back to persecuting Jews.
There is a VERY good argument for why compulsory medical trwatment is such a dangerous line to cross. After all, it could be argued that Mengele's eugenics program was about the "greater good" of the majority. It just had the minor technical problem of what was done to minority, but hey, it's in the greater good.
There is a reason why we hold it important to preserve individual control over allowing doctors, or politicians, to force medical treatment on us. Once you start, you cannot be sure where you end.
The answer to this is not forced vaccination, or legal sanction if you don't. It's publishing all the information, and having a good, thorough debate, and educating people on the benefits, and yes, any risks, of vaccination.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
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.
Here is a comprehensive list of countries that offer separate vaccines on their national health services, in addition to MMR:
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ZaO
Lots of things have the potential to affect everyone. There are decisions you make everyday about the things you buy, and in turn the companies you support. I bet there are lots of things about the way you live that I can link to suffering and criticise you on. I'm sure you could with me too.
The problem is with such protection from vaccinations, it is only effective when the majority of the herd have it. Without it, it is useless. Please, read the bits before, we cover the moral difficulties of this at length, the whole prisoners dilema aspect too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ZaO
You're just saying it's not still debated. As some of you seem to like using scientists in the field as the only point of reference, well there are scientists in the field of work that debate it - it is still debated. Not having access to all test results also leaves uncertainty for a lot of people. But you call that bad judgement. How do you feel when people keep bits of information from you and don't tell you the whole story on something? It can be hard to trust them huh.
Ok, so who are these scientists in the field of that work? Can you please provide the links to them? Because they don't appear in any meta analysis.
As it stands we have a discreted, discrased, former doctor, who not only flunked ethical standards in his testing, but apparently miss represented some financial insentives he had too. I think we can happily discount that one voice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ZaO
Now I still want to ask, what would you like to be done with people who refuse vaccinations?
Well that is the thing, if it is a very small number, a very small percentage in the community, it doesn't matter much. Simple monetery sanctions to pay for the increased risk their childs health (and thus the taxpayer) face would suffice.
I don't believe blackballing the child from social gatherings is a good option either. So we'll re-define this slightly, it isn't the child refusing, a 2 year old will refuse any needle. It is the parents refusing. As is, we currently prosecute parents who willfully starve their children, a case study I had at uni included a mother who starved her 12 year old daughter (so much so onset of puberty faltered), she consistantly defied social workers and sadly because it was left too late her daughter ended up in hospital. We have a system already in place for overruling the wishes of the parent, as anyone who has ever worked with someone who has an eating disorder, they will happily (and easily) turn round and list all the health problems overweight people have, remind you that you are overweight etc. They think they are being 'healthy' by starving themselves, even if they stop menstraiting they don't take the hint.
I would consider someone at the moment who refuses say MMR, to be mentally ill. If they had a credible 'scientific method based' reason behind their actions, I'd be very interested to hear it, as I am sure many people would.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
directhex
Here is a comprehensive list of countries that offer separate vaccines on their national health services, in addition to MMR:
I take it you have an exhaustive list of references for that list? ;) Besides, everyone doing the same thing doesn't make it right.
When she asked (late 90s/early 2000s) some areas of the UK did offer separate vaccines as an alternative, but not her local one. If the national health service was genuinely concerned about the health of the nation, they would give more people more choices about the treatments they could receive. I'm pretty sure the cost of separate vaccines isn't prohibitive, given we were managing just fine that way before the combined MMR was approved...
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
So .... when the NHS is spending lots of money on care for, what, the terminally ill, let's save the resources expended on them because the result is inevitable anyway, and they cannot contribute to society, so let's just forcibly euthanise them and spend the money on things more productive for the greater good?
What about the severely disabled? Maybe it's also in the greater good to dispose of them too, as they too tend to require disproportionate resources, that could be "better" spent on "the majority".
That is precisely what NICE have to do.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
When she asked (late 90s/early 2000s) some areas of the UK did offer separate vaccines as an alternative, but not her local one. If the national health service was genuinely concerned about the health of the nation,....
Woah, slow down there. Buying into the MMR scare via the Daily Mail is one thing, suggesting that the NHS isn't genuinely concerned is another.
It's nothing to do with them being concerned, but more of a business issue. The NHS has finite resources for both staff and equipment. Offering alternative solutions for something with zero evidence to back it up is an utter waste of these resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
they would give more people more choices about the treatments they could receive.
Why?
If a treatment works, then why are more options needed? The NHS is there to help provide a basic level of care for everyone and beyond in many cases.
The average punter on the NHS isn't going to read journals on the matter and make an informed decision, they're going to be swayed by advertising and the Daily Mail.
We've already started to see this mentality creep in with homoeopathy with millions being spent on magic water. And before someone says it, the placebo effect, saving money long term as a result and so on...I'm fully aware of the other aspects of it, but it just put's into perspective how terrible the average human mind is when it comes to making an informed decision about medication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
I'm pretty sure the cost of separate vaccines isn't prohibitive, given we were managing just fine that way before the combined MMR was approved...
It is when production has stopped.
Go and ask Intel to make you a batch of Pentium 2s.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Agent
Offering alternative solutions for something with zero evidence to back it up is an utter waste of these resources.
Offering a single solution without compelling evidence that it is both the safest and most effective solution is bad management, though. And flat refusing to consider any other solution is worse, particularly when that other solution is both available and well-tested.
Quote:
If a treatment works, then why are more options needed?
Because other options may be safer, or at least have a much greater weight of evidence behind them. Because not everyone is identical, and there's no way to prove that one solution is both effective and safe for everyone.
Quote:
The average punter on the NHS isn't going to read journals on the matter and make an informed decision, they're going to be swayed by advertising and the Daily Mail.
Which is worse than being guided by a clinician with a vested interest in you choosing their preferred option? They should at least be given all the information and the option to make an informed decision - that isn't currently the case.
Quote:
It is when production has stopped.
At the time separate vaccines were still available, and still being used in some parts of the UK. I'd be amazed if it's not still possible to get all three of those vaccines as separate treatments.
But all of that is kind of moot to my point, which is that if a government, or health organisation, or ANYONE is genuinely concerned about maintaining herd immunity through vaccination, then they need to offer options that will encourage as many people as possible to agree to the vaccination. Otherwise they're just paying lip service to it. Offering a vaccination scheme that x% of the population will refuse is hopeless, particularly when alternatives are available.
So what's more important, the vaccination, or the budget? Based on current evidence, I'd say the latter.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
Offering a vaccination scheme that x% of the population will refuse is hopeless, particularly when alternatives are available.
But how far do you go?
What if somones precious little sproggette should only be allowed organic eggs, which have been raised by hens that have bi-daily access to a shiazu neck massage?
Should the NHS accomodate them? (Plenty of vaccines are grown with animal produce)
The fact is that the MMR was at the time and today, considered safer than seperate, due to the times between vacinations when having them indevidually.
The NHS funded and provided what was best, and what in hindsight was 'right'. The fact some had some old stock lying about matters not.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
That is precisely what NICE have to do.
No, it isn't.
NIHCE has a wide-ranging remit, much of it advisory but some of it legally binding on the health service, but that remit is to provide recommendations based on the best available evidence and cost-effectiveness. It is quite conceivable that a better medical option exists but that it's not recommended because of cost.
And all your reply does is avoid an awkward question, because there is no answer, and nowhere is NIHCE recommending euthanising the elderly, for example. Where does NIHCE recommend any such forced treatment?
NIHCE has different prioritiies to parents. NIHCE is, among other things, concerned with getting best value from finite resources, so among other things, it has to consider opportunity cost.
Any responsible parent, on the other hand, is looking after their child's interests, and applying their best judgement of what's best for their child, based on ther judgement.
And even NIHCE will tell you that they base recommendations on best available evidence, and we've already established that a lot of evidence, regardless of what, if anything, it contributes, simply isn't available.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
Offering a single solution without compelling evidence that it is both the safest and most effective solution is bad management, though.
But that's exactly what the MMR had - extensive trials and evidence it was safe. MMR wasn't just made up over night and injected into people. The evidence and medical trials took years and thousands of man hours to get to that stage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
And flat refusing to consider any other solution is worse, particularly when that other solution is both available and well-tested.
Another solution should only be considered when the first one isn't effective / viable, along with actual evidence that there is an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
Because other options may be safer
"May be safer"? MMR may be safer. Works both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
or at least have a much greater weight of evidence behind them.
And people are free to present that evidence to the world and the scientific community for scrutiny. Of which there isn't currently any....
If you have proof that singular jabs have more evidence behind them about being safe, you'll make yourself a lot of money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
Because not everyone is identical, and there's no way to prove that one solution is both effective and safe for everyone.
Correct, which is why you refer to a medical professional for vaccinations and medication. Someone who is trained to know the issues with various medication and different people.
If they deem it so that you need a different treatment, then they should offer it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
Which is worse than being guided by a clinician with a vested interest in you choosing their preferred option?
Shouldn't happen in the UK as the doctors can only prescribe drugs from a pre-approved list. Of course, if you have evidence of corruption in the medical profession, report it. But of course, that requires evidence and a lot of people being invested in covering it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
They should at least be given all the information and the option to make an informed decision - that isn't currently the case.
What information is not being provided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
At the time separate vaccines were still available, and still being used in some parts of the UK. I'd be amazed if it's not still possible to get all three of those vaccines as separate treatments.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...ion-stops.html
The mumps vaccine isn't produced any more.
Without the MMR, you can't have a vaccination for mumps since 2009.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
But all of that is kind of moot to my point, which is that if a government, or health organisation, or ANYONE is genuinely concerned about maintaining herd immunity through vaccination, then they need to offer options that will encourage as many people as possible to agree to the vaccination. Otherwise they're just paying lip service to it. Offering a vaccination scheme that x% of the population will refuse is hopeless, particularly when alternatives are available.
It's genuine, it's just people are stupid. If you make them single vaccines, then you have the anti-vaccine movement take the place of the anti MMR people. If you get rid of those, it's the PETA / ALF. Remove those and it's the "It's not organic" crowd.
It doesn't matter how many options they offer, people will still find some reason to not have it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
So what's more important, the vaccination, or the budget? Based on current evidence, I'd say the latter.
If you have any evidence, any what-so-ever that there is an alternative to the MMR that costs more, but is safer - post it.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Agent
....
Why?
If a treatment works, then why are more options needed? The NHS is there to help provide a basic level of care for everyone and beyond in many cases.
Perhaps because what some people want isn't "basic", and an option they consider to be better exists that they are quite prepared to pay for. Or, that they have simply decided to reject because while the NHS offers it, the patient declines to accept it.
The NHS is required to provide treatments NIHCE recomends as a results of it's technological projects, but those recommendation include cost-effectiveness as one of the two main criteria. That, of course, is entirely rational for a publicly-funded health service with finite, if very large, resources, but when the NHS is required to offer treatment A, it may become impractical to also offer treatment plan B .... and A has to be assessed as "cost-effective".
Part of the hidden truth of the NHS is that the best option is not always affordable. I've lost track of how many times, for example, a dentist friend told me he wanted to offer this or that treatment, and would for a private patient, but despite being a much better solution, for an NHS patient he can't offer it because the NHS simply won't pay for it.
What is the priority of the NHS, to offer "basic" treatment, might not be the best option available, or priority, for the individual patient.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
If they deem it so that you need a different treatment, then they will offer it.
Shouldn't happen in the UK as the doctors can only prescribe drugs from a pre-approved list.
They will provide it if it is approved, and that approval process includes it being "cost-effective". And that pre-approved list is a bit more complex than you might think. Treatments can be approved in that they are safe to use, but not NIHCE recommended, in which case there is no obligation in law to provide it. And that that point, clinicians can only provide what the bean-counters authorise, even when the clinician would prefer the alternative.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
Part of the hidden truth of the NHS is that the best option is not always affordable. I've lost track of how many times, for example, a dentist friend told me he wanted to offer this or that treatment, and would for a private patient, but despite being a much better solution, for an NHS patient he can't offer it because the NHS simply won't pay for it.
What is the priority of the NHS, to offer "basic" treatment, might not be the best option available, or priority, for the individual patient.
I don't really think this is hidden to be honest. Maybe it depends on how familiar you are in with the area, but I can't think of anyone I know that doesn't realise the NHS is a business with finite resources.
I'm not saying (or hopefully have not come across as saying) that every treatment the NHS offers is the best one, because that's simply not the case. What you've quoted was a reply to the MMR statement from scaryjim, not the NHS as a whole.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
Because other options may be safer, or at least have a much greater weight of evidence behind them.
They don't. There are very few clinical studies of the individual Measles, Mumps & Rubella vaccines, as compared to the number of studies on MMR.
Quote:
Which is worse than being guided by a clinician with a vested interest in you choosing their preferred option? They should at least be given all the information and the option to make an informed decision - that isn't currently the case.
Considering the MMR scare was fuelled by someone being paid by a single vaccine manufacturer...
Quote:
So what's more important, the vaccination, or the budget? Based on current evidence, I'd say the latter.
Vaccination rates are considerably lower where single vaccines are offered, as people basically don't bother taking all the jabs. As per studies on the topic, anyway.
Re: Should parents be held legally responsible for not vaccinating their children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
They will provide it if it is approved, and that approval process includes it being "cost-effective". And that pre-approved list is a bit more complex than you might think. Treatments can be approved in that they are safe to use, but not NIHCE recommended, in which case there is no obligation in law to provide it. And that that point, clinicians can only provide what the bean-counters authorise, even when the clinician would prefer the alternative.
What would you rather me say?
"They will offer it if allowed"
"They will offer it if it fits within the framework of their institute"
"They will offer it if it's within their power to do so"
There are always going to be limitations on what can be provided under the NHS. I wasn't implying that they would be working outside of this.