Thanks for the post schmickers:

So, do the needs of the "society" outweigh the needs of the individual child? When do the rights of the "society" become more important than the right of the parents to choose on behalf of their child?
Interesting question. Most of us that are pro-vax though see vaccination as both benefitial to society and to our child, not that one outweighs the other. So, in a way, this is only a question that suits anti-vaxers. It seems that many choose to ignore the herd immunity argument in favour of an individuated approach, which means, perhaps they do see the needs of their child outweighing society's needs. This is fine...I am not advocating compulsory vaccination, just putting the reasons out there why I vaccinate.

As for rubella and delayed vax until later (say 16 or so). The idea is to minimise childhood illness. Yes the little boy's case was mild, but 1 in 6,000 children develop swelling of the brain. It would also benefit all pregnant women if rubella was a disease largely reduced in our society through vaccination. Not all pregnant women in Australia received the vax (think of migrants) and pregnant women and children are often socialising together.

If you're pro-vax, then I cannot see the logic in delaying. I understand the argument about chemicals 'assualting' a newborn, about the 'onslaught' to a tiny body. As far as I can see, the whole world is an onslaught to a newborn, and as a pro-vax I choose to think I am protecting my baby in the best way I can (feel free to disagree )

I think, we can argue until we are blue in the face. Perhaps the government should put together a more coherent fact based website so parents can actually make an informed choice. One where the research is done by people who understand the literature, and to prevent the whole debate decaying into anecdote and hearsay.