Do You Think Childhood Vaccinations Should Be Compulsory?

[BeautifulMadness]

This my opinion, i personally have had both my kids fully immunised. For their benefit, i do not want to see MY child get sick from something they could have been prevented, even if they do get the disease, its not as bad as it could have been, My eldest had measles, but didn't get it as bad as he could of.

I voted yes but only if for some reason you can be immunised.

Without Vaccinations, the world wouldn't be such a great place to be living.

[Glamourcide]

I did my research and decided that having my children immunised was in their best interests, as well as the wider community's. I would hope that the vast majority of parents would also come to the same conclusion, but I am aware that some children with (for instance) suppressed immune systems or other issues may be very adversely affected by immunisations, so I trust that the parents of those children would make a decision they feel is going to protect their child the best way they can.

Rather than being made 'compulsory', I think there should definitely be much more information, education campaigns etc, talking to the general public about things like booster shots. I myself was unaware when having my first baby, that parents, close family and friends should ensure their vaccinations are up-to-date to prevent the spread of illness in babies that are too young to be vaccinated. I remember a very sad case of a newborn baby dying of whooping cough because a family member had not had booster shots and the baby caught it - absolutely tragic, and possibly preventable!

I would encourage parents to do their homework and make a choice that they feel is best (and in my opinion, for MOST people, vaccination is the best option), I disagree totally with 'nanny-state' measures like banning this and that and making this or that compulsory. Generally speaking, we're not idiots, we should be capable of self-regulation.

[Yeddi]

This my opinion, i personally have had both my kids fully immunised. For their benefit, i do not want to see MY child get sick from something they could have been prevented, even if they do get the disease, its not as bad as it could have been, My eldest had measles, but didn't get it as bad as he could of.

I voted yes but only if for some reason you can be immunised.

Without Vaccinations, the world wouldn't be such a great place to be living.

You talk about "MY" child, because you take ownership of your own children and how you take care of them - that's fantastic and absolutely your right as a parent because you are the one that has to deal with any outcome (good or bad) from those decisions. BUT you still voted "yes"... Do you really think it is right to remove that same autonomy from other parents by making something compulsory rather than an option just because you believe in it? Obviously, it's not just you that have answered in the same way (you're just the post directly above me - edit* well, you were when I started typing ) but I do not understand this logic, where taking away someone else's rights just because "I" or "they" believe differently is justifiable.

Could you imagine the uproar if I said all parents HAD to get their son's circumcised - it's a preventative measure just like a vaccine. Why teach boys to clean a foreskin when we can just remove the danger of infection by taking it off? People would scream - mutilation, cruelty, even though the WHO have proven it reduces the chances of AIDS by 60% and that's only what they've *proven*, so that long standing argument that there is no medical benefit is slowly losing its weight to the point AMA etc. have changed their official stance from "there's absolutely no reason for routine circumcision" to "it's up to the parents to decide" - for an institution like the AMA those little word changes are HUGE. But as we can see there's no way anyone would suggest (except maybe some religious zealot) that it should be compulsory for all parents to submit all boys to this procedure. Anyone who did would be seen as unreasonable and stepping well outside the bounds of their authority. Why is it any different with vaccination? I consider injecting little babies with 26 injections in their first year of life cruel. I consider injecting things like formaldehyde, mercury, antifreeze, and the cells of aborted fetus' or animal stem cells into my child's blood internal mutilation. Just like I respect another parent's choice to circumcise, I also don't judge parents who vaccinate - I would like the same respect back.

[Little Chicken]

Just for the record the record there is no mercury in any childhood vaccine in australia, and hasn't been for a very long time. They may get 26 immunisations, but not 26 injections.

[Yeddi]

Just for the record the record there is no mercury in any childhood vaccine in australia, and hasn't been for a very long time. They may get 26 immunisations, but not 26 injections.

Not true. The single Hep B vaccination (the one they try to give babies on their first day of life before they've built an immune system) still contains Thimerosal. There is a Thimerosal-free version but you have to specifically ask for it (if you know to).

26 injections/immunisations does it really matter? If we were talking about needles there's at least 15, but that is not what I was personally talking about - the p.rick from a needle is fairly benign (they bleed - it clots - done) . Why do I consider it cruel? (Note, I'm talking personal opinion here). Because I don't think it's right to expect MY little baby to cope with the fall-out effects of 26 different immunisations in the first year of life. The immunisations are meant to have a physical effect - they don't go in there and do nothing. Every immunisation DEMANDS that baby's body to work in either accepting it or rejecting it and it's adding artificial exposure on top of what they are already being exposed to naturally (things like the flu, pollens, animals, solid food's - with whatever it's had added to it if it's not organic, detergents and other chemicals). Plus they're growing, tripling the size of their brain and learning. Baby's body has a LOT to do in the first year of life. I think it's nonsensical to flog it some more and then wonder why it starts to shut down, create intolerances and syndromes etc... Ingredients aside, if the schedule was of single vaccinations (even though this does mean more needles), spread out over time based upon what is more immediately detrimental I could understand that logic a little bit more. But I cant say I understand the logic of risking creating a life threatening wheat allergy in order to immunise my kids to *slightly* reduce the effects of gastro.

[Little Chicken]

The single hep B vax uses thimerosal during manufacture with the vast majority removed prior to final use, there is only a trace amount left in the final product. By last years WA schedule, there were only 10 injections and 2 oral immunisations in the first 12 months. You could also say that it is not 26 different immunisations, they get exposed to 11 disease antigens from immunisations on the schedule (i'm not counting flu shots here), with the 4 and 6 month ones boosters for the birth and 2 month ones. To really say it is immunisations alone causing the problems is a far stretch considering the other environmental factors pointed out. From my point of view in the decisions I made for my child, I would rather she was exposed to these diseases safely and artificially then to be exposed to them in their natural state.

[Trillian]

It appears that people are missing the point again. This is not about whether you agree or disagree with vaccination. this is about taking away the rights of parents to choose what is best and right for their children. Muminalice, you agree with vaccination, but do you really want to be FORCED to do it? Do you want the Govt to make that decision for you? Do you want other parents to have the right to choose or not to choose? Because that is what it boils down to. More women were outraged when Giselle said she wanted it made law that women should breastfeed and this is exactly the same thing, just a different area of parenting. So why do so many people feel threatened by people not vaccinating?

[Winter]

So why do so many people feel threatened by people not vaccinating?

Because vaccination / immunisation prevents diseases and not vaccinating/ immunising allows opportunites for diseases to take hold in our communities again and that puts MY children & YOUR children at risk. The decisions that we make for our children have wide ranging effects in our community for EVERYONE.

[Little Chicken]

It appears that people are missing the point again. This is not about whether you agree or disagree with vaccination. this is about taking away the rights of parents to choose what is best and right for their children. Muminalice, you agree with vaccination, but do you really want to be FORCED to do it? Do you want the Govt to make that decision for you? Do you want other parents to have the right to choose or not to choose? Because that is what it boils down to. More women were outraged when Giselle said she wanted it made law that women should breastfeed and this is exactly the same thing, just a different area of parenting. So why do so many people feel threatened by people not vaccinating?

To be perfectly honet with you, I wouldn't mind because I would do it anyway. That does not mean I agree with the idea of forcing everyone to do it and I think I said that in some of my previous posts. My posts above were just clearing up some misinformation and not to start a discussion about the benefits or not of vaccination.

[Yeddi]

Because vaccination / immunisation prevents diseases and not vaccinating/ immunising allows opportunites for diseases to take hold in our communities again and that puts MY children & YOUR children at risk. The decisions that we make for our children have wide ranging effects in our community for EVERYONE.

Hmm.. funny that the most recent cases of polio and whooping cough were found only in those who were vaccinated...

Well, if this is the logic that allows others to force things on other people, I want it to be compulsory that parents MUST make all their food and cleaning products at home from scratch using all-organic products so they don't clog up the medical system with their health issues - because that effects the whole community too.

[meow]

Because vaccination / immunisation prevents diseases and not vaccinating/ immunising allows opportunites for diseases to take hold in our communities again and that puts MY children & YOUR children at risk. The decisions that we make for our children have wide ranging effects in our community for EVERYONE.

I think the idea of herd immunity has already been well revoked in this discussion when someone mentioned that adults are not required to maintain boosters. It is adults spreading these diseases, such as whooping cough, that are more of a concern. If we truly believed in herd immunity then adult boosters would be compulsary- not childhood vaccinations.

[Trillian]

Because vaccination / immunisation prevents diseases and not vaccinating/ immunising allows opportunites for diseases to take hold in our communities again.

But this isn't totally correct. They do not prevent them 100%, vaccinated children are still getting sick with these so called preventable diseases that they were vaccinated against. You say that like it is a 100% guarantee when it's not. Non vaccinated children are not big bad boogey-men that will make everyone sick. We fight so hard for our rights to choose - our right to choose where we birth, how we feed them, how we raise and educate them, so why can't we fight to choose if we vaccinate them or not?

[LimeSlice]

Because vaccination / immunisation prevents diseases and not vaccinating/ immunising allows opportunites for diseases to take hold in our communities again and that puts MY children & YOUR children at risk. The decisions that we make for our children have wide ranging effects in our community for EVERYONE.

Sorry but that is largely untrue.
There is no whooping cough vaccine in Germany for instance, and the WC infection rate is LESS than that of the US, where is is given beofre 2 years of age as per schedule. Same with Measles. And the declining rates of infection have continued now that they have not offered it for almost 30 years.

It is a proven FACT that more immunised children succomb to these diseases that they have been immunised against than non-immunised children. So by that fact alone, NOT immunising poses less risk to your child than immunising.



The swine flu vaccine they offered contains thimerosal.

[Winter]

If we truly believed in herd immunity then adult boosters would be compulsary- not childhood vaccinations.

I'd happily go along with making adult boosters compulsary as well. I'm up to date with everything. I truly, truly believe in immunisation and put my money where my mouth is. I've had shots for just about everything you can think of, including rabies, yellow fever etc and I have never once had an adverse reaction.

[Trillian]

That's great that you haven't had any reactions, but a lot of people do and I think they should be allowed to choose if they submit themselves to vaccination or not. Besides all that, we would have to be vaccinating and quarrantining people straight off the plane as well because they could be carriers.

[Yeddi]

My posts above were just clearing up some misinformation and not to start a discussion about the benefits or not of vaccination.

What misinformation? Are you talking about yours... First you said there was NO mercury and then had to retract and say there was only a little bit (btw independent tests show it hasn't been removed as much as they say it has). And I was talking about the number of immunisations, not the number of diseases - babies are exposed to artificial immune products 26 times in their first year of life (the purpose of immunisation is still to create a physical response whether it's the first, second or third time they've been exposed) - and I was't including the flu shot either.

[Winter]

Kelly asked for the YES voters to comment, but to be honest, it feels like there is absolutely no point in saying anything positive about vaccination in these threads. People who don't vaccinate are not going to be swayed by us who follow conventional medicine because it doesn't fit with what they believe, and those who do vaccinate feel victimised and made to feel stupid with all these "facts" that get written up without any references. People who are on the fence are going to be swayed but more likely by the non-vaccers because they tend to shout the loudest and come from influential members of the BB community, starting at the top with BB herself. I think there is a lot of scare-mongering about vaccination (admittedly, this comes from both sides) and none of us are really qualified to make the assertions that we do.

Over & out.

[Little Chicken]

Yes I did, I forgot about that one, but one with a trace amount in is different from them all having it. Still I would rather the 26 times as well as the hundreds of thousands of other antigens they are exposed to in their first year of life. You originally said 26 injections (and yes there is a difference). You could (and I said could) argue that the amount of adjuvants they are exposed to is less as well because of combined vaccines. But I think this discussion is for a different thread and not for this one.

I agree with winter, that if you are going to make vaccination compulsory, why stop it at age 18. If adults are the ones passing on diseases to children, make the booster shots compulsory as well.