Do You Think Childhood Vaccinations Should Be Compulsory?

:

---

Honestly...?

---

Your right that we are both making massive generalisations

:

---

I could use that logic with immunisations, that say any decreases in disease in recent decades are only because of better diagnosis and reporting as apposed to the estimations used before proper medical records were kept, but that's not convenient to your argument.

---

LOL, better reporting and records would seem to help my case! Im not sure what you mean? :)

:

---

1. They would need to be mobile. 2. I'd have their blood tested to check the state of their immune systems - if it was compromised I wouldn't vaccinate, but use avoidance methods instead. 3. If I went ahead I would make sure it was only a single vaccine (not a combo) and 4. I would be a diet nazi and make sure I was loading them with good bacteria, and good bacteria feeding foods.

---

I have no doubt your a fantastic parent, :pray:
but what about the rest of us very average parents who do what they can while living in our battery-hen existance? :doh:

I don't know a single person who could so judiciously manage their children's immune systems and I have serious doubts that a small minority of even well informed anti-vax parents could do what you do. They just don't immunise. :shakehead:

:

---

I think you're onto something there SAHD. IMO immunisation would come under the umbrella of distancing from nature, wouldn't you think? Nature would be letting the disease run it's natural course, although not a popular choice or easily accepted one.

---

I should have been more specific, the study was about children having unstructured play in unaltered green spaces, but I take your point.

:

---

also think that when it comes to Autism and ADHD that their causes are multi factual, with a high probability of immunisation being one of those factors in a lot of cases (as it is "distancing from nature"). It could well be because of one or more ingredients eg Thimerosal which I don't think is relevant in Australia as it's not in the MMR any more, but like Yeddi is trying to explain the way it alters the gut in general, which refers to all vaccines not just MMR.

---

I understand the need to move back to 'natural' things, good food, no medical interventions etc which is all admirable but our natural environment was destroyed 10,000 years ago with the coming of agriculture and we'll never get it back. :shakehead:

We live with the choices of our society every day,

one day very soon Tony Abbott might be our PM, the idea of this makes me feel sick and embarrassed but we live in a democracy and I'm not happy but I'll put up. :doh:

You may say this is drawing a long bow but a Lib government will seriously affect my livelihood and therefore my children's lives, and this is only a single very general example.

We live in a society, that means that we're not as free as we'd like. Though this may sound awful, its not 'shut up and do what I say', we have a choice about vaccination and I support that choice but I also support our health system making decisions on the health of my children.

Though you have pointed to abberations, you cannot seriously deny herd immunity, can you?

:

---

I have no doubt your a fantastic parent, :pray:
but what about the rest of us very average parents who do what they can while living in our battery-hen existance? :doh:

---

You know you have terrible habit of taking my words out of context and trying to make them into insults. Why can't you just make your points without trying to do that, because it makes the discussion unnecessarily messy.

Most people don't treat themselves like battery hens - they respect their own individuality - whether they extend that to other people is another matter. Battery hen logic is mainly the tool of the "System" because if we paint everyone with the same brush, if we make blanket rules it's easier to manage "them". It's the one in, all in philosophy used by institutions but the thing is we're not all the same (particularly when it comes to our health) - we humans are simply not that convenient. There are certain things that are universal and apply to all, and there are things that are relative. Trying to make something that is a relative into a universal is like trying to put a square peg into a round hole and then wondering why these issues.

:

---

However, to suggest acceptance of a preventable disease epidemic in the interests of population control, is IMO ridiculous.

---

That is not what I said at all.

I posed a question - which still hasn't been answered but those that wish to irradicate 'preventable disease' either, BTW.
I never asserted anything other than speculation and an extrapolated view of an end game, where there will need to be choices made about how far individual choice goes and where species concern begins.
If you cure all this disease, in Africa for example as I have been yet again "defied" to go there and let them all die, and cure all the preventable disease, how will you feed them? Where will they get clean water from? We are presently in a country where it seems at least 30% of the population can't be bothered sharing resources with 2,500 refugees that arrive by boat every year, how are we prepared to feed millions more? Just as an outside example.

There will come a time, quite frankly vaccine or disease or not, where your choice as an individual will be curtailed by a population control policy.

Anyway, getting further OT from the OP here. My initial question still stands. When we get to the point of no preventable disease, no suffering, no children dying (and adults for that matter) what then? How will you tell people they aren't allowed to have kids because we have too many people? How will you stop the wars over the finite amount of land that exists when already die over it now?

We cannot stick our head in the sand and think that medical and scientific advancement do not have long reaching social, economic and biological effects. You can't just say "we will think about that tomorrow" - it hasn't worked for the last 300 years, not going to start now.



SAHD: Again, don't "defy" me to do anything - you don't know me, know where I have been, what I have seen. You tried to tell me you have taken control from nature - what control? What is it you think you can control? Did you/could you control it when you stood in that mud and grass hut? Apparently not.

:

---

but I also support our health system making decisions on the health of my children.

---

I absolutely don't. The health system is there to serve the people, not to dictate to them what they can and can't do. You might not distinguish between the two, but I certainly do. We are consumers of our health system, not subjects to it. What next? Are we all meant to donate our first born so that they can be used for "parts" - think of all those lives their organs will save for the greater good! Sounds horrible doesn't it, but there's really not a big difference between that and asking a parent to knowingly risk the health of their child if they have issues with vaccination for the sake of the "herd". One is simply the active version of the passive suggestion. Once we head down the road of demanding other's give up their rights to autonomy (or even giving them up freely) where does the line in the sand get drawn? Have you ever seen V for Vendetta? I'm not talking about the biological warfare/immunisation part (I'm not that much of a conspiracist), but what happens when one either willing gives over or is forced to give over their autonomy to the institution. I don't find that part all that unbelievable.

:

---

Though you have pointed to abberations, you cannot seriously deny herd immunity, can you?

---

Yes, I can deny it is based purely on immunisation, and that there isn't a myriad of other factors involved.

:

---

I should have been more specific, the study was about children having unstructured play in unaltered green spaces, but I take your point.

---

Ok I get what you meant, sorry for misunderstanding ...and specific is good for me, sleep deprivation has rendered my brain extremely sluggish :lol:

This is the only warning that is going to be given.

Please do not make this discussion personal by attacking each other. From what I can see there have been quite a few posts that completely cross the line and breach BellyBelly Guidelines. This means baiting, stirring or flaming one another.

It's great to see a discussion that has such passion but we will not tolerate rude and obnoxious behaviour.

Any further posts that are deemed to breach guidelines will be infracted immediately without warning.

If you are unsure of what the guidelines are it may pay to read them. Which you can do so HERE

:

---

I have no doubt your a fantastic parent, :pray:

---

I meant this as a compliment, I aspire to be more like the parents on this BB, I have no doubt that you ARE a fantastic parent. Though we may differ greatly on our view on vaccination I have no doubt that we do actually have very similar morals and ideals and I don't doubt that anyone posting here has the highest regard for their children's welfare, thats why we're all here, I understand that and respect that. Even if it sometimes doesn't sound exactly like I do.

:

---

There will come a time, quite frankly vaccine or disease or not, where your choice as an individual will be curtailed by a population control policy.

---

Sadly I believe this to be true :( As our population grows we are going to have to compromise more and more simply so that things work. This is why I voted "undecided" because at present the population density is such that it can be avoided to a certain extent... you can choose to live in a small rural community... but even then you are still being exposed to far more people than nature probably intended.

It's like driving on the roads these days compared to when the first cars were invented. Initially drivers had more freedoms and safety but as the road population increased more and more restrictions have had to be enforced... no choice about it... people just simply can't drive like they used to: choosing their own speed, not needing a license, not needing seat belts... laws had to be introduced for the average drivers safety. Lord knows how complex it's going to keep getting out there!

Our lives will keep becoming restricted just so more and more people can fit comfortably and survive on this planet. What people have to do is think about things both on a personal and public level. I'm not saying it has to be all doom and gloom. We can all make a greater effort to tweek the details to strike that fine balance of doing what is right for us and others. Personally I think that it starts with simply staying home when you are sick ! I know people have to earn money and so soldier on and put their kids in day care even though they are sick but this must really be frowned upon! It really must be drilled home to people that exposing your germs to others is wrong wrong wrong. If people were as passionate about staying home when sick as avoiding a vaccine i would be somewhat comforted and then maybe the rest of the arguement would be irrelevant. I agree, vaccines don't always work... so lets educate people about the importance of quarantine! And then we could relax in the knowledge that we might not need to go to the expense and risk of vaccinating at all.

ETA: I write this as my DH sleeps in bed trying to ward off a cold virus so that he can have his hernia operation on Friday.... he is sick because several of his colleagues at work thought it was best to "soldier on" at work last week... and because of their poor judgement DH's operation (which is tricky to reschedule) is at risk. :(

Instituting something like this is a very scary thought. People will likely find this a drastic comment, but hearing this honestly makes it easier for me to understand how something as abominable as the holocaust could actually occur. People are just so content to trust the authorities without questioning what is really going on. Forcing an infant to ingest toxic carcinogenic substances such as formaldehyde, aluminium hydroxide and thimerosal mercury would be nothing sort of criminal - in my opinion!!
What would inevitably happen (and has happened in various US states where it has become compulsory for children to have all vax to enrol in school), is that free birthing and homeschooling rates would go through the roof, and so would the rates of autism and other autoimmune diseases.
Goodbye democracy and hello communism! :-(

I was just speaking about this to DH, and I think he bought up an interesting point....

When we enrolled our kids for child care - it was a condition that they were vaccinated to be enrolled. Would that be deemed discrimination against those parents who chose not to immunise? I wonder if that is just our CCC or all (or most)??

It's a good question Leesa, because its not actually legally compulsory to be vaccinated in order to enter any educational institution in this country (YET!) but many childcare centres etc will choose children who are vaxed over non vaxed from what I have heard. However I believe some institutions will ask to see a consientious objection form and only want the info so they know who to send home if an 'outbreak' occcurs.

I never had a problem and I don't think you can exclude on basis of immunisation status.

I've worked for a child care centre and we didn't exclude. Any half decent one would realise that some children and their parents, whether conscious objectors or not, simly should not be immunised due to an array of reasons such as fragile health. Our centre didn't judge at all, especially if the parents seemed educated in their decision.

ETA: i don't see it as a natural progression to communism either.... wearing a seatbelt is also 'complusory' but certain people can get exclusion eg heavily pregnant women... and your baby doesn't even need to be in child restraint in a taxi... I really don't see a need to 'freak' at the word compulsory... our government has a history of being able to make concessions based on common sense... on the whole ;)

:

---

I never had a problem and I don't think you can exclude on basis of immunisation status.

---

:yeahthat:

It is discriminatory to exclude on the basis of not having been vaxed, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen behind closed doors.

I think it is very sad that many people get their child vaxed without thinking about it at all. I told someone in my MG that we were delaying vaxing DS, and she said "Oh, are you allowed to do that?" Certainly the questions from my GP, MCHN, in-laws, parents in my MG, friends, etc, all say "so, when is DS getting his vax?" and "has he had his needles yet?" Yet it never occurred to any of them that vaxing is not compulsory - because the government allows people to think that it is. I know Rhea Dempsey refers to this as "Nudge Economics" - where you have to "opt-out" of treatment/intervention rather than opt-in. And in order to "opt-out" you have to have give your reasons why, be assertive, well-informed, etc. To receive treatment/intervention is expected and is the norm - yet you don't have to be educated/informed or assertive to receive it.

I think there is a big difference between the compulsory use of seat belts and compulsory immunisation. Firstly, you can always take the seat belt off, but you can't take a vaccine out of the blood stream. Secondly, there are other options such as walking or catching public transport. By making the free-choice to get into the car, you accept the terms of that decision - but you do have the option not to get into the car. Compulsory immunisation does extend that same option.

I honestly don't think it is a big jump at all to say that compulsory immunisation will lead to other removal of freedoms. I wouldn't personally classify this as the Communism bogey man like Jelly Bean - Hitler was a democratic leader after all. We're not talking about a particular political institution, but the basic idea of freedom. Just looking at history, the removal of all freedom, sanctioned discrimination and violence starts with just ONE action that undermines that basic human right. Once that line is crossed, it doesn't take long until it leads to more questionable policy. I would ask those who think that vaccination should be compulsory, would you also agree with something like microchips being implanted for identification or DNA registers also being compulsory? Each of those could be easily justified for the protection of the "herd" (how I hate that term). As far as I see, you can't create a precedence in the removing of liberty and then cry fowl when the next policy is one that doesn't suit you like this one does. If we can choose whether we walk or take a car, we absolutely should have the right to decide whether something goes directly into our bodies.

I had a wonderful discussion with a school principal about this today at a birthday party. She is pro-vax, but understands that there are reasons why some parents choose not to. She did say that they cannot exclude a child from school based on vaccination status, but they will have to exclude if there is an outbreak. It's only a small school of 35 students so there is a 100% vaccination rate anyway she said so it's not a problem as such, but she is also accepting that vaccinated children will get an illness from time to time. We were talking about it because our area currently has a bout of both chicken pox and measles and we were discussing how the older children born earlier than 2006 are most at risk because the chicken pox vaccine was not put on the schedule until 2006, so you have all these kids that aren't vaccinated for it unless their parents paid for the vaccine. I paid for my older 3 to have it ($60 per vaccination) but there aren't many other local kids that were done when you had to pay for it yourself. So people can whinge and gripe about chicken pox, but there is an enormous amount of children that are not vaccinated for it by default because it wasn't on the schedule at the time of their births, so if you only ever follow the schedule, then there isn't going to be anywhere near 100% vaccinated populations for it.

Old thread but anyway......

The herd protecting the few who don't immunise is no longer the case unfortunatly.
So many parents are choosing not to immunise (not judging) that the herd no longer protects those that can not have the immunisations due to severe reaction and or allergy to a componant of the immunisation. Sadly.
In all honesty being a member of another Forum and the majority of the parents on that sight that choose not to immunise far out weigh the ones that do. Far out weigh.
The true reason why we no longer see diease's that are immunisable is due to the immunisations. Do some research look at children who have Polio and suffer long term and in some cases lifelong suffering. Almost eridacated? NO but rarly seen in the west now, same can be said for Measles, Mumps and Rubella.
I understand the concern about immunising children, I do and I questioned immunising myself with our children till I met a family who lost their 7 week old to Whooping cough(to young to be immunised)
And I met a lady at my Grans nursing home who had Polio as a child and had been disabled since the age of 9 due to Polio. She was a lovely lady who shared her struggles told us how bad it was and all the other nasty stuff.
We decided to immunise but till then was swaying against it.
I am happy we made the decision to immunise now but wasn't in the beginning.
You need to be aware that immunisation's don't mean you or yours won't get said dieases just won't be as severe if your lucky.
It was the lady with Polio that cinched it for me, I don't want a child of mine to suffer like she did her whole life since she was 9 years old.
Was chatting to our GP last time we were in, she said when western dr's are presented with Polio, measles and such that most would have a hard time diagnosing as they are rarely seen.
I love this GP as she is open minded and dosn't fit the normal dr sterio type. SHe herself has 3 children and admitted she almost didn't have her kiddos immunised just her dh insisted.