Thanks- that's what I thought. I was pretty sure you can't get the CCB/CCR without vaxxing or signing a COF.:
Printable View
Thanks- that's what I thought. I was pretty sure you can't get the CCB/CCR without vaxxing or signing a COF.:
The results of the poll on here are a bit surprising though ... only 55% of us (at the moment) would say a definite 'no' to compulsory vaxing. I would have thought the results would be much stronger for a straight up 'no' than what they are. I don't really have a point, just that I am surprised by the results at the moment ...
:
I voted NO. Although our children are immunised (we too made an informed decision we are happy with), I would be horrified if that choice was taken away from us and from others. How dare anyone force that upon us!
Same here, Just Me.
I voted NO
Molly Jane recently caught the Chicken Pox, from a vaccinated child... So vaccinating children will not stop the spread.
Making it compulsory in Australia will not stop the spread as we holiday overseas where it will not be compulsory and people holiday or immigrate from countries that will not have made it compulsory.
I choose not to vac any longer, i made an informed, educated and well researched decision... it is however my choice and understand that others vaccinate for their own reasons... each to their own, as long as it is not a blind decision. - i would have been mighty annoyed if i had of vaccinated MJ against Chicken Pox and she had of got them anyway!
Exactly what i thought JM..... So many saying they can see both sides and everyone deserves a choice, but the stats show that only about half actually believe that, and our kids should be jabbed without our say so.... :cry::cry:
Its hilarious isn't it?? my eldest 3 caught CP again (they are vac'd) when my 3 littlies did.. I could tell the littlies had them, but the big ones just got a few spots I didn't notice... so who was out spreading it??? My vac'd ones, not the unvac ones!!! There is SO much more spreading going on from the boarders than from unvac kidlets, but they make us out to be practically lepars!!! ;):
I am personally a big believer in vaccinations, and both of my children are up to date with thier needles. that being said, i don't discriminate others who make an informed decision to not vaccinate. however, i believe that if fail-safe vaccinations were produced, then i'd be more inclined to say they should be compulsory. just my humble opinion.
Haven't read all the replies yet, just a couple, so I'll go back after.
We have vacced all our kids, although no swine flu vax & there won't be any chicken pox vax either.
I think it's really, really important to have the right to an informed decision.
:yeahthat: exactly what I was thinking. The whole point of choosing to vacc is that we have a CHOICE.:
I'm surprised by that too. Nothing else, just a bit surprised.:
I did hours and hours of reading and even went to see a specialist before we made the informed not to vaccinated DS at this time. The specialist recommended NOT vaccinating him with some of the vaccines based on our situation, but also said that some of the others should be fine.
There are some vaccines that I would gladly give DS IF they were available singly, not as a combo vaccine. For example, I don't want to give him a vaccine for polio, when we don't even have polio in Australia. I'm often asked "but what if he decides to travel when he's older?". But isn't the answer simple? He can then decide to get the vaccine before he travels to a problem area, just like we currently do with the typhoid vaccine... I wish the government would stop spending money on campaigns to try to get more parents to vaccinate, and spend more money on research to improve the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Perhaps then those of us making the conscious choice not to vaccinate would be happier to vaccinate.
Ok... I'll try to get out what's in my head without saying it wrong!!
Vaccinating is not just about protecting the vaccinated child, but about protecting those in our community whom are most vulnerable to disease - the young, the elderly and the immuno-suppressed. Whether it is BG's dad with emphysema, a child undergoing chemotherapy or a person with HIV, many of the diseases which can be vaccinated against would be devastating for the immuno-suppressed patient and potentially fatal. A healthy child with a fully armed immune system will most likely recover fully from a dose of the measles. A child undergoing treatment for leukaemia may not survive the same infection. The aim of a program of mass-vaccination is not specifically to prevent the illness from occurring in an individual, but to prevent a pandemic or an epidemic of disease. Mass vaccination is proven to be effective in disease epidemic prevention - there is no question it works in large scale disease prevention.
So, it is the government's job to make the decisions which provide the best safety and security for this country and it's citizens as a whole. There is no question that more people would die as a result of an epidemic of disease than would die from mass vaccination. We only need look at disease pandemics of the past (the Black Plague, Avian Flu etc) to see that this is true. So then... would it be unreasonable to consider that mass vaccination would be made compulsory in order to best protect most of us?
Does this mean that I think it should be compulsory to vaccinate my child? I don't know... I'm one of those undecided people.
Do I need to hide under a chair??
Nickle - Good on you for having the courage to say what you think on here and I hope you would only receive respectful replies so you shouldn't need to hide under a chair ;)
I can see your point about it being a community safety issue and although I am pro-vax for my own family, I still feel that I would be having my rights removed to be forced into it. Also once vaxing becomes compulsory and the legislation as a whole is passed, it is much easier to slip other things in there without anyone really having a say so. Even if the current vaxes were 100% effective (which they are currently not), and there was a guaranteed safety for everyone who had them (which there isn't - but I believe we are in a low risk category but I do acknowledge there are side effects), I would still be fundamentally against it being compulsory.
I don't like anything that takes away our right to choose and makes it easier for the gov't to change the schedule without community input so while I don't have many issues with the vax schedule at the moment, there is nothing to say that it is not going to change in the future and I would like the option to research and opt out if I feel that it's not right. By making things compulsory, we will all lose that ability to choose.
I hope that makes sense :)
Nickle73, no need to hide from me. I agree with what you are saying. I also believe those of us that choose to vax contribute to the immunity of the entire population.
I am a bit older than some of you and I remember people who had polio and what a debilitating disease it could be.
I do agree however that because our lives are "cleaner" these days that some of these diseases probably would not spread as they used to. However I believe that if we did not immunise, it would be the more vulnerable members of our community that got the diseases if they recurred, rather than those that have the luxury of practicing good hygiene.
I agree with you nickle73 as well, and yes better hygiene will slow the spread of some diseases but not eradicate them. Measles is airborne, as was smallpox.
I guess I see the issue here as not being for or against immunisation, but rather it is about human rights. I start to worry when the gov't stops trusting people to think for themselves and feels the need to impose on them. I also worry about where it will go because once that right is removed, it is easier to change things so in the end it doesn't really resemble what people thought they were agreeing to. I want the option to choose each time, every time.
I also have a problem with it being a criminal act to excercise a choice not to have medical intervention - the women on here that choose not to vax their kids are well informed, intelligent women (as are the women that do vax their kids) and it would be a tragedy to label them as criminals because they feel the risk outweighs the benefits. I can't think of any other medical procedure that is forced on anyone, at anytime. I don't think any of us (on BB anyway) enter into our decision about vax lightly and we should be entitled to make that choice.
Definitely not, thats like forcing everyone to eat only brown M&Ms, you cannot take away the basic right of choice.
Look we have Vaxed our kids...DS2 is delayed by choice....BOTH decison were informed and Educated...I really dont believe that the government is out to hurt people in this statement they are just trying to work out what is bst(and we all know that sometimes they are waaaay wrong:P )..maybe i am niave but...I also dont think Vaxs were created to harm anyone either!
But you cannot take away choice!
I don't think the gov't intentionally uses vaxes to harm people either - but they aren't foolproof and there are people in our soceity that are at more risk receiving the vax than they would be or would pose without it. If I was the mother of a child at risk, I wouldn't want to jump through hoops to stop my child from being put at that kind of risk. I think consciencous objectors have to jump through enough hoops as it is, I can't imagine how much worse it would be if it was compulsory and how stressful it would be if you believed that the vax could possible cause your child to have a disability or worse, die.
Vaccine info pamphlets lists some pretty significant side effects for some people, though currently the percentage is very very small. I have to wonder though, if it became compulsory, and everyone was forced to vax, how much the side effect percentage would rise because parents that believed their children were at risk were suddenly forced to vax. If compulsory vax meant very very few exemptions, there could be a huge rise in the side effects experienced.
Big Pharma is slack and poorly testing already... imagine if they had law on their side too.... would get even more sloppy I reckon.
I'll join you under the chair if need be. This is such a tricky area, and while I am all for freedom of choice, I do believe that the decision not to vaccinate is not just about the individual, but the broader community. Like you said, immunisations protect the weakest in our community. I can't imagine how I would feel if a baby of mine caught measles (or some nasty) from a child who wasn't immunised. Even if it wasn't a fatal outcome, I don't know if I would be able to forgive the parent of the child who wasn't immunised and passed the disease on to my baby.:
In most cases these diseases are contagious well before they show any symptons, so they can be caught anywhere, passing through a childcare centre, the park, the supermarket, a play date...
I have to put it out there - how would you feel if your non-immunised child got something like measles and passed it on to a friends 6 week old baby before you even knew they had it? Imagine if that little baby didn't survive it because they weren't as strong as your 6 or 7 year old (or whatever age) child... Would you be able to forgive yourself?
I initially voted yes (and TBH after re-evaluating and reading the subsequent posts, wish I had of voted 'no' because I believe in freedom of choice) because I believe that vaccination is about the community, not the individual. Until my DS has been vaccinated for certain things I don't want him being exposed to older children who haven't been vaccinated for illnesses he is yet to be vaccinated against for the reasons outlined above. After he's had his vaccination I couldn't care less, but before he is ready for them he is at risk because of someone elses decision. But I can't protect him from this because we can encounter these risks anywhere, another child in the supermarket que, at the park, or even at childcare...
Anyway, that's just my POV...
:hide: Before I say this, I have not voted as I am undecided about whether vax should be compulsory. And in general I think if we could trust people to do the responsible thing all the time (which includes researching and making a choice) then there would not have to be legislation.
The government does legislate to protect the community against people doing the wrong thing. For instance, speeding on the roads, if 55% of the population decided to speed, there would be chaos on the roads. So legislation makes people think twice about it. Having a majority of people doing the "safe" thing for the community protects everyone else. Maybe not a good analogy but I think it sort of applies to immunisation as well.
I don't think the rate increase would be that huge. The average child vaccination rate for australia this year so far is over 90% for children under 27 months, and just under 90% for those over that age, so if the rate of side effects increases at the same rate as the amount of vaccinations increase, that is an increase of less then 10%.:
I agree with Kelly and just love how this sensitive discussion has been conducted so respectfully! :thumbsup:
I voted as "Undecided". Nickle essentially summed it up for me too. I am personally against our country becoming a Nanny State but there are so many aspects of life that are getting so much more complex as our population grows. Sadly a larger and higher density population (living in a manner that nature did not intend) has it's sacrifices and this COULD be one of them... vaccination.
I liken it to seat belt use. It's compulsory. We are not given a choice. We must wear a seat belt... and we are having to spend a lot of money on more and more complex car seats for our kids. I can remember a time when kids didn't have to be placed in capsules and car seats. I was born in 1969. Now there have been reported cases of children being injured and even killed due to wearing a seatbelt (admittedly incorrectly in most cases)... this is such a tragedy. However looking at the bigger picture selt belt use has saved more lives than harmed. Our roads are becoming such fast and intense places compared to the slower pace of the 1960s and 70s. Roads these days are made for speed... so nicely laid out and smooth... not the bumpy twisty turny roads that i remember being driven along as a child... they've all been smoothed out to allow the cars go faster and so the driver doesn't have to actually concentrate as hard... hmmm... many would argue that a road that requires concentration is safer than one that is so smooth you get so bored you nod off (and doing three times the speed you would be than on the twisty one)!
Ok so my analogy may be flawed and weak... but essentially what i am trying to say is that I immunise my kids and myself as a defence against the unnatural situation we live in, our high density city. The reason I am undecided though is because at the end of the day people ought to be be able to heed their intuition. I AM uncomfortable at the idea of a government legislating vaccination... that takes away personal responsibility which is never a good thing. It's tricky...
I guess the thing about speed and seatbelts is that it is legislating something that happens externally to ourselves. If we really have a problem with it, we don't drive a car. Vaccination legislation is legislating something internal to ourselves. If we want to live in this country and raise our kids here, we have to permit to something being done to our bodies - and we have no say - which is why I am fundamentally against it but have no objection to road safety laws ;)
This is definitely a human rights issue. The gvt cannot impose this on people, surely.
I think that immunisations are important, some of these diseases are slowly rearing their ugly heads again - but will do so with or without vaccines anyway - but that is just my thoughts.
Sue x
I am against mandatory vaccination.
I think this strike against one of the most inalienable rights we have as parents - the right to elect what substances we expose our children too.
The theory of herd immunity is often used as a good example of why vaccination should be promoted, but in reality, there is one flaw to that theory - it relies on vaccines being near to 100% effective. Some vaccines aren't. Pertussis, for example, is at best 90% effective, lower in some studies, and new evidence indicates that the bordetella pertussis bacteria may be appearing in new forms which the vaccines does not provide immunity against. Vaccination is not a substitution for good and careful personal hygeiene, and this is doubly important for those people in the community who are immunosuppressed. Imagining that mandatory vaccination would provide a new measure of protection for vulnerable members of the community such as these is unwise.
I accept that some people see vaccination as being "socially responsible", but in my experience, parents are willing to subject their children to procedures or interventions that are "socially responsible" only as long as these interventions are compatible with their general world view. Once they are asked to do something to their child they do not agree with for the sake of "social responsibility", their regard for social responsibility tends to evaporate fairly rapidly.
I think vaccination is good public health strategy, but when it becomes mandated it suddenly becomes very, very bad. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons why vaccination is not the best choice for a person. I already work in the only profession in the only country in the world that has made vaccination mandatory. I cope with that, because as an adult I feel the risks are minimal and because I have a choice (even though it is not necessarily a very good one) - I can always leave the profession. But my children don't have a choice not to be children, and for that reason, vaccinations should not be mandated. Fear-mongering has already robbed me of the choice of where to give birth, as the perfectly safe and evidence-based option to have a homebirth with a trained and qualified midwife of my choosing is now virtually illegal in Australia. It should not lead to the government dictating what medications I give my child. Informed consent is the very backbone of patient centred care, and the decision to mandate immunisation would remove my right to consent.
That's what I think.
:yeahthat:
Thanks Michael.
I have a COF as well - he was only vaccinated to 6 months and then I lodged the form.:
Just Me: But both situations are pertaining to human health. I don't have my drivers license... but if I wanted to avoid wearing a seat belt as a passenger I still couldn't do it... there is no opting out. I use public transport alot (almost daily) because I believe it's safer than private car travel though... for me and my children. But along with transport our lives ARE getting more and more complex and complexity means more rules. Unless you want to opt out of the complexity. And that's the question... how does a family balance living in an unnatural high density environment and the risks of such a lifestyle? How does the average family feel about having the choice of having clean air taken away from them? Why are the heavy metals and chemicals our children breathe in as we walk them along a busy road (and BTW the levels are higher inside your car) less worrying than the heavy metals and chemicals in the vaccinations we receive? I don't get that we are accepting of some sacrifices and not others. I get really angry when people take my choice to breathe clean air away simply because they choose to drive to the corner store or school or work when they could walk. I still remain "undecided" though. My thoughts are a work in progress.
I'd be more devastated if one of my vaccinated children (I do have fully and partially vaccinated children) passed on something like that simply because I falsely believed that they were immunised.:
The thing is, immunisations are not full protection. Their effectiveness can weaken over time so how do you know that your supposedly vaccinated children aren't the ones spreading the disease/illness to the weak and compromised? If anything, this utopian idea of immunisation can cause people to be careless because they assume that once the injection has been given, that it is OK, their children are fine to be around immunosuppressed people and that they will never catch, nor pass on illness, but the reality is that they may be no safer around these children than those who have never had a vaccination in their life. It is a rather poor reason to force compulsory vaccination on people.
ETA - when you think about it, what is the point of vaccinations anyway? You have them, but how many have ever taken themselves or their children back to test to see how effective they were? If the Govt planned to introduce mandatory vaccinations to reduce or completely eradicate diseases, there would be a bigger push towards booster shots for ALL vaccinations and routine testing to check for effectiveness otherwise the entire exercise is pointless.
SO back to the topic :) it still comes down to what your rights are as a parent, and as several have said, no matter which side you sit on, you have to support the right of the parents to choose. It is easy to agree with it if it is something you agree with already, but what if this progresses further? Where does it end?
It is not the vaccination that loses effectiveness over time, it is the fact that the immune system "forgets" over time. Which is why they reccomend booster shots and that there are very few vaccines that are only given once. Catching diptheria naturally does not give you lifelong immunity so why would having a vaccination against it give you lifelong immunity? Actually having whooping cough does not give you lifelong immunity, nor will the vaccine, again why they reccomend you have regular booster shots. the same with tetanus. If the full strength wild strains wont give you life long protection you can't expect the vaccines to, it is an unfair ideal for them to live up to.
Whilst I completely understand the concept of "herd immunity" I also believe that there are flaws in the theory due to the limitation of the vaccines. If the vaccines were all proven completely safe and 100% effective I'd be the first in line to get it for my kids. But until that time there is a tough decision that needs to be made by parents and it's my believe that that choice should never be taken away. My DS is at a higher risk for some of the possible risks of some of the vaccines, so at this point in time my choice is still to not vaccinate.
It's actually coincidental that I would post in this thread today. My 10 year old DSS has been coughing for almost 4 weeks, and after 4 doctors and 2 hospital visits, the Royal Children's Hospital has diagnosed him with possible whooping cough. Now apparently he is no longer contagious, but my 13 year old DSS who has also started coughing may be contagious. Both the DSS's were fully vaccinated for whooping cough. My 14month old unvaccinated DS on the other hand does not have any symptoms of whooping cough.
That's exactly it - how many people do bother with booster shots and how is the Govt going to mandate for it? It just cannot work to have it compulsory because you would still have to have boosters as adults and how would you like, as an adult with a mind of your own, to be told that you HAVE to have a vaccination? You wouldn't would you? Because that's what would have to happen - every single person in the country would have to participate in a vaccination program. Once your child is of the age where they are no longer getting vaccinations according to the childhood immunisation schedule what happens then? Do they create an adult immunisation schedule? If you want the choice as an adult to decide what to do, why can't parents have that right for their children?:
I just find it really interesting, as I always do when these types of discussions about immunisations, turn to the inevitable "how would you feel if...." scenarios, like the answer to that will always be the same.
And I also find it amazing that people want to put weight behind an argument to put MY child at risk by injecting her with vaccines that have been proven to increase risk of other disorders for which she already has increased risk. I find it phenomenal people think the government can/should enact a blanket policy that is not as varied as each individuals medical history, risks and body.
Because I can guarantee you, I would feel worse about the fact my daughter got MS later in life because she was forced to get a Hep B vaccine than I would about her getting Hep B (or passing it on to someone else), and I would challenge anyone to justify to m why the government should be allowed to force me to increase her risk of contracting such disorders simply for the sake of the flawed notion of inoculation and herd immunity.
This can probably be seen as a little heartless... but my number one priority is my child, not the community as a whole. And that's what's always been forefront in my mind when I debate whether to get DS vaccinated or not. I already have a DSS affected by something that "may" be vaccine related, therefore my DS is at a higher risk. I also have two brother's with the same disorder to a much greater extent, a sister that developed major allergies after being vaccinated (timing "may" be coincidental), and I only ever had one whooping cough vaccine due to having a reaction to the vaccine. After all of that, I think about the risk to DS well before I think about any potential risks to the community.
And that is why a compulsory vaccination program would never work - you simply cannot take into account all the variables that could mean a child would be better off without a vaccination - vaccinations come in a carrier fluid that is made up of many things - things which people can have life threatening allergies to, so once you start having to make exclusions based on issues like these, then people will be wanting exclusions for all types of reasons. Once you start including exclusions to a program it gets confusing and people will wonder why this group of people can be excluded, but they can't.:
:
:clap:
And that is everyone's POV too - THEIR child comes first. As it should be for the most part I think.
It is unfortunte though that some are so uneducated or inexperienced with such things to understand that getting the vaccination can be lethal or seriously detrimental to so many kids out there for myriad reasons.
So then we come back to parents being in the best position to decide on behalf of their children.:
Vaccination is a medical procedure. Medical procedures performed without consent are assault. If vaccination is made compulsory, what else could people be forced to endure?
:clap: Exactly.:
By the time you caculate the amount of people vac actually dont work for, ( me included, I have had a reubella shot after EACH baby as my body rejects it so fast) and then the amount of people whos vac's have run out, then how much vac does this country actually have?? I dont think it would be anywhere near as much as some think. Most vac are gone by the time we are teens, which has been shown and shown again, with massive outbreaks of whooping cough and CP in teens, as they have no vac left, and they dont even realise.
These are the people spreading it the most, not unvac babies. How many unvac babies have such a social life that they are being walked around by mum, just spreading diesease?
My vac kids have a higher chance of catching and spreading many of the things they were vac'd for in the next few years, but my unvac'd ones who have already had these childhood illnesses, have a much lower chance of catching them again, therefore not spreading it. Medical journals have very clearly stated that it is very uncommon for an unvac'd person who has had CP to get it again, actually a lower chance than a vac person. Having a childhood illness gives you more protction than a vaccine. I have 3 kids that have already have CP twice, and 3 littlies that will most likely never get it again. Out of my 6 kids who is at most risk of passing it on later? The 3 vac'd ones....actually, they already gave it to their siblings!!! :p
So to a vac person, what is the difference?? ( I ask this seriously, not be a pain!)
You could catch CP of a 4 month old little baby who missed one lot of shots (not very probable) or off an vac teen/adult/elderly ( much, much more probable) Almost all cases of whooping cough comes from an adult.
So if I dont vac MY baby, how does that harm yours? Its the adult who thinks they are not contagious that is riskier to your child, not my not -walking- yet, not- breathing- over- you- for -at least- 3- hrs baby spreading it around.
Keeping little babies away from catching things is very easy, its a lot harder to control a massive population of teens/adults who "think" they are vac, and actually aren't. ;)
Actually, I just thought, how much more protection would this country have if it were compolsary for adults, not the babies???
The large majority of people who spread, are teens and adults... what if them getting the boosters was mandatory?
Would we see a drop in these dieseases do you think? I would much rather myself have shots, where the side effects are much less riskier, than my babies to get them.
And that would probably serve the wider community better, do you think???
Hmmmm....