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

[TheAnimus]

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?

[phil4]

Doesn't this stem from the actual or perceived risk of the vaccine itself? Indeed as I understand it, it's potentially worse than this, as there was a perceived risk of combiner MMR jab, but no such concern for separate jabs, but the NHS in it's wisdom would not fund the later.

Thus, who decides what is acceptable or unacceptable risk? The reality is we let the parents decide, and to be honest I think that's a sensible route.

So rather than prosecute, what's wrong with either providing risk free solutions, or educating that there is no risk?

[Biscuit]

I didn't realize this pathetic fear of vaccinations had spread across the pond, there are no words to explain how ridiculous these people are... P&T have a bash at it though



As always with these shows, NSFW

[TheAnimus]

Doesn't this stem from the actual or perceived risk of the vaccine itself? Indeed as I understand it, it's potentially worse than this, as there was a perceived risk of combiner MMR jab, but no such concern for separate jabs, but the NHS in it's wisdom would not fund the later.

Thus, who decides what is acceptable or unacceptable risk? The reality is we let the parents decide, and to be honest I think that's a sensible route.

So rather than prosecute, what's wrong with either providing risk free solutions, or educating that there is no risk?

Not at all, the NHS decided to fund the combined vaccine because there was no credible risk. The only risk suggested was by someone who used such shockingly poor and ethically invalid testing he was struck off iirc.

Separate jabs are not risk free either, because they mean that the child will have a longer period of time unprotected. As a taxpayer I am very glad I didn't pay more money to have children given less protection.

However, the issue I object to comes when people don't get the child vaccinated at all. That is very worrying.

[phil4]

this pathetic fear of vaccinations

While I agree there's no reason to fear vaccines in general (and indeed I wouldn't say all parents do, or that it's even that common here), why wouldn't you give credence to 13 medical researchers publishing findings in the Lancet? We go to doctors because they are experts in their field, and we are not. If 13 of them suggest there is a problem, why do we feel we know more than them?

I agree that the research said no causal relationship was found, and indeed what was said outside of the paper was more problematic, and that other research has found no other links, but at the time why would you discard experts views, and indeed even now, I wouldn't say the controversy also means zero risk.

[phil4]

However, the issue I object to comes when people don't get the child vaccinated at all. That is very worrying.

If this risk is not proven to be zero, then why do you object to the parent having a say?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there is a risk, or that it's not insignificant. If it's not proven to be zero, I'd rather have a choice.

Incidentally I did vaccinate my kid, so I'm not arguing against vaccination, more giving people a choice with regard to their child.

[Biscuit]

While I agree there's no reason to fear vaccines in general (and indeed I wouldn't say all parents do, or that it's even that common here), why wouldn't you give credence to 13 medical researchers publishing findings in the Lancet? We go to doctors because they are experts in their field, and we are not. If 13 of them suggest there is a problem, why do we feel we know more than them?

I agree that the research said no causal relationship was found, and indeed what was said outside of the paper was more problematic, and that other research has found no other links, but at the time why would you discard experts views, and indeed even now, I wouldn't say the controversy also means zero risk.

You answer your own question here...

13 researches suggested there was a problem, further research found no direct link...

Even if there was an actual link, the risks involved would be much much lower than the risks involved in not giving your children shots and leaving them at risk to all the diseases.

Watch the P&T video, there isnt much more to say on top of what they do.

[phil4]

Even if there was an actual link, the risks involved would be much much lower than the risks involved in not giving your children shots and leaving them at risk to all the diseases.

When our kid was still not quite born, we were presented with all sorts of statistics, as to relative risks of various problems. On that back of that we could chose to or not to have, for example an amneo.

I think you're painting something far too black and white, when it isn't. Neither study has proven zero chance, moreover no link found. there's a difference, albeit subtle. I've not been presented with the choice of shot vs not.... indeed that's why I talk about educating, rather than prosecuting.

Likewise risk vs outcome are different things also. 0.001% chance of autism can't be compared with 0.1% of Measles, if the worse measles manages is a rash. Not saying any of what what I've just written is fact, just trying to illustrate that if outcomes aren't comparable in severity, then direct comparison is not possible.

[TheAnimus]

If this risk is not proven to be zero, then why do you object to the parent having a say?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there is a risk, or that it's not insignificant. If it's not proven to be zero, I'd rather have a choice.

No risk can be proven to be zero, its like asking to disprove god.

We currently force legal ideas based on the same principle of risk analysis. The issue with vaccination is it works best when everyone has it, for the more frail in society there is a risk and they shouldn't be subjected to the risk on contracting illness thanks to the selfish action of a few in the herd.

Incidentally I did vaccinate my kid, so I'm not arguing against vaccination, more giving people a choice with regard to their child.

Sure, they why not let them opt out of any facilities of school or NHS.

In the same way its illegal to deprive your child of certain standard key rights, vaccination should be one of them. (don't get me started on parents who refuse blood etc).

[TheAnimus]

Likewise risk vs outcome are different things also. 0.001% chance of autism can't be compared with 0.1% of Measles, if the worse measles manages is a rash. Not saying any of what what I've just written is fact, just trying to illustrate that if outcomes aren't comparable in severity, then direct comparison is not possible.

Actually that is what lots of people do for their day job. Also I'd suggest reading up on Measles or Mumps before dismissing them as nothing worse than a rash.

The problem here is, there has been 0 evidence for a link with autism, not one credible piece.

This isn't a case of "ooh urm its hard to know what's right". You will never get an easier decision to make in life. Assuming you have a basic understanding of scientific method and statistics.

[phil4]

As I said I wasnt saying it was fact, just illustrating something.

I do have a basic understaning of the things you note.

Indeed if you read this, you'll see that there aren't zero risks:

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccina...e-effects.aspx

Not saying any of those is related to autism, but still, given the above, and the 1 in 1000 chance of fits 6-11 days after the jab, why shouldn't I be allowed a choice?

[TheAnimus]

Not saying any of those is related to autism, but still, given the above, and the 1 in 1000 chance of fits 6-11 days after the jab, why shouldn't I be allowed a choice?

Because if everyone choose not to, the risk of ilness would be worse.

It is what is often refered to as the Prisoners Dilemma.

Now society generally guards against this, in fact I'd suggest it's a wonderfully simple definition of what society is, to the greater benefit of everyone.

In this case, if no child is vaccinated, there would be an incredibly high risk of illness and even death posed to your child. As such you would get them vaccinated because it is in their interest. However if the herd is immune, it makes contacting the illness very unlikely, as such its in the child's best selfish interests to not be vaccinated. But of course if everyone does it....

The ability to not need a vaccination should therefore be reserved for those who are medically less able.

To not vaccinate a healthy child is abusive and sickening.

[dcwt2010]

As I said I wasnt saying it was fact, just illustrating something.

I do have a basic understaning of the things you note.

Indeed if you read this, you'll see that there aren't zero risks:

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccina...e-effects.aspx

Not saying any of those is related to autism, but still, given the above, and the 1 in 1000 chance of fits 6-11 days after the jab, why shouldn't I be allowed a choice?

Have you read the little info package that comes with paracetamol or aspirin. I know drugs are different but everything we do entails risks. MMR are serious diseases which we have forgotten about precisely because vaccinations have been so successful. I can't seriously believe we're having this debate; if these diseases weren't so contagious I would let it be unfortunately they are.
Yes, I think it is child abuse to not get your child vaccinated.

[directhex]

Doesn't this stem from the actual or perceived risk of the vaccine itself? Indeed as I understand it, it's potentially worse than this, as there was a perceived risk of combiner MMR jab, but no such concern for separate jabs, but the NHS in it's wisdom would not fund the later.

Thus, who decides what is acceptable or unacceptable risk? The reality is we let the parents decide, and to be honest I think that's a sensible route.

So rather than prosecute, what's wrong with either providing risk free solutions, or educating that there is no risk?

1) There is no country on this or any other planet where both the MMR and individual vaccines are offered by that country's national vaccination programme

2) The more tested something is, the safer it is. MMR has been used on *millions* of people. Individual vaccines on hundreds. MMR has been shows safe literally thousands of times more than the separate vaccines. What are the side effects of the individual vaccines? Nobody knows!

The NHS made made the correct choice years ago to use the best, cheapest, and most tested vaccine. There is not a single published study in the world that suggests MMR is less safe than individual vaccines.

[directhex]

While I agree there's no reason to fear vaccines in general (and indeed I wouldn't say all parents do, or that it's even that common here), why wouldn't you give credence to 13 medical researchers publishing findings in the Lancet? We go to doctors because they are experts in their field, and we are not. If 13 of them suggest there is a problem, why do we feel we know more than them?

The paper which was retracted?

Just to verify, you think the country's healthcare decisions should be made on the basis of a paper withdrawn for fraud, and not the tens of thousands of experts in their field who support what we do already?

[phil4]

Ok, as I said I did vaccinate my child.

It sounds like you prefer the government to force decision for you rather than allowing your to chose, if so I doubt a few words as to my view will change yours.

Btw: the prisoners dilemma idea is really interesting in this application, cheers for the link.