[Closed] Compulsory Vaccination of Children

How many kids used to die because the illnesses we now vaccinate against and how many are SUSPECTED of having problems or dying (by all the scaremongers) because of the vaccines? There lies your answer

Probably easier just to ban the unvaccinated from public places.

Anyway it's got all the elements of a right big argument, parents, kids, other peoples kids, fake/bad science, conspiracy theory and more.

If you sign something that says that your child will never use the NHS for treatment of the illness the vaccination is targeting, but will pay for treatment privately - then they shouldn't have to have the vaccination.

If you subscribe to using the NHS, then you have to accept their decisions and way of managing risk.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the attention seeking, malinforming, scaremongering anti vax lobbies but do support the right of a parent, who having made a decision about what they feel best for their child(ren), to be able to make they decision without being vilified and without State intervention.

Sometimes what people 'feel' is best isn't best. Excepting allergies what possible reason is there not to get vaccinated?

Turnerguy - Does the same apply to other voluntary risks - drinkers, smokers, drivers, cyclists, domestic appliance abusers?
Just saying.

but as a parent a deeply uncomfortable with the State dictating what medications I must give to my child.

You can probably get treatment for this.

measles is the biggest vaccine preventable killer disease in the world today, I think. Might want to look that up though . It's also very very infectious, I think 9/10 out of non vaccinated people living with an infected person will get the disease.

You might be against individual medication, but what if a measles outbreak hits the neighbourhood?

[img] [/img]

This is why.

to be able to make they decision without being vilified and without State intervention.

I'm uncomfortable with mandatory vaccination, not because I think it is a potentially harmful thing (all my children are fully vaccinated), but because I think that the fundamental relationship between healthcare professionals and the population needs to be based on good communication and consent, rather than compulsion.

If you unbalance that relationship, then I think we lose a lot more than we gain.

If you base a decision to make measles vaccination mandatory on a very small number of deaths in developed countries (the bulk of deaths from measles are in developing countries), then you could make an even more compelling case for making flu vaccination, or statin use, or various screening programmes, compulsory.

Turnerguy - Does the same apply to other voluntary risks

If the state advised against doing them then why should the state (our taxes) pay for the consequences of you going against their advice?

Take out your own insurance for that sort of thing instead of relying on the state 'insurance'.

It's like expecting my normal ski insurance to pay out because I made a mistake off-piste.

There is not an endless pool of money - someone needing treatment for cancer might not have the funds available because some parent decided against the state advice of vaccinating their child and the money has gone on them instead.

he fundamental relationship between healthcare professionals and the population needs to be based on good communication and consent, rather than compulsion.

you are over-estimating the 'smarts' of the general population - you know - the ones that go to the doctor for some anti-biotics because they have a cold, or then go to A&E because the doctor won't give them any...

Mandatory vaccination is impractical, because there are some people who for varying reasons cannot be vaccinated. This is why it's so very important to vaccinate everyone else.

I am anti anti vax

Then you need to do some reading. Or you can explain why you're "anti-vax", and I can endeavour to explain why you've been misinformed. Either or.

[img] [/img]

In the developing world, secondary pneumonia does most of the killing but is rare here. SSPE "only" kills 15-30% but it's massively debilitating too.
20ish a year down to near zero is justification alone, IMO
(those are ENgland & Wales figures)

[i]then you could make an even more compelling case for making flu vaccination, or statin use, or various screening programmes, compulsory.[/i]

Is this not just a "slippery slope" logical fallacy?

I am anti anti vax

To be fair, I had to read that a second time.

Or you can explain why you're "anti-vax"

He's anti the antis...bit of an awkward double negative though. 😐

Cougar - Moderator
Mandatory vaccination is impractical, because there are some people who for varying reasons cannot be vaccinated. This is why it's so very important to vaccinate everyone else.

I am anti anti vax
Then you need to do some reading. Or you can explain why you're "anti-vax", and I can endeavour to explain why you've been misinformed. Either or.

Cougar i think you missed the thrust of that statement.

Turnerguy - Does the same apply to other voluntary risks - drinkers, smokers, drivers, cyclists, domestic appliance abusers?
Just saying.

Drinking, smoking, domestic appliance abuse affect only yourself.
If you drive/cycle and hurt someone else the hammer of the law will come down harsh.

Do you think therefore if you have a kid and don't vaccinate you should be prosecuted and sent to prison if your stupidity causes someone to get ill or die.

Just saying.

EDIT: OP - the law (which is signed and in place) is for children who go to public school. Exceptions are made for medical reasons. You can avoid vaccination if your kid would have it otherwise and you're so selfish if you home-school.

Cougar i think you missed the thrust of that statement.

You're right, sorry. Cheerfully withdrawn, I completely misread it!

Is this not just a "slippery slope" logical fallacy?

You may be right, but I do note a tendency in some bits of public health to take one restrictive step and then use that as a platform to move towards the next one. Obviously that observation (anti-smoking legislation) is in a slightly different ballpark in which health campaigners are on more solid ground, but the principle of doing something to protect the herd and the individual is similar.

As I said before, I'm generally pro-vaccination, and think health authorities should be continuing to strenuously campaign to win hearts and minds rather than resorting to compulsion, which runs the risk of poisoning the relationship. Even as someone inclined to vaccinate my children, I would be taken aback to get a letter instructing me to deliver them up for their jabs or risk a fine etc. Also, if non-compliance is a criminal matter rather than a free choice, it will also become the business of other arms of the state.

If vaccination uptake is poor in some locations and communities, there must be a reason, and simply labelling the folk involved as thickies who need decisions made for them is lazy stuff.

martin, yes agreed, I'd be much happier with an education and information based programme.

I think there is an element of "we know best, just do what we say" in some parts of the NHS, the: "Don't smoke, don't drink, don't even think about that donut" finger wagging can grate, but you'd be surprised I think just how "new" that news is to a lot of folk even in 2015*

* I work in primary care, on a daily basis I'm staggered by the lack of knowledge that you'd take for granted as "common"

Idiots will always be idiots. Not vaccinating is verging on child neglect imo.

Not vaccinating is verging on child neglect

Depends. A lot of the principle behind mass vaccination doesn't relate to the individual risk your child has of suffering harm from that illness, but the need to achieve a herd immunity to protect younger, unvaccinated children and other vulnerable immune-suppressed groups, as in the Californian case cited above.

If herd immunity for measles is already present, as it is in many parts of the UK (not all, though), the non-vaccination of your child may well represent little or no risk to them, but there is a societal responsibility to maintain herd immunity for the benefit of others.

So you're not necessarily neglecting your kid, but other people's ill aunties and babies.

Wow, with so many other real and present threats/issues to worry about regarding your kids I'm amazed this even gets on people's radar. Do people really and truly believe the hogwash conspiracies around vaccinations? The thing with vaccinations it's all about protecting the population and is sort of an all or nothing thing. It's pointless to have half the population vaccinated and the other half not. There is plenty of evidence around after the decades and generations we've been vaccinating people so it's a waste of time for our very busy doctors to have to explain the obvious to people. You can find all the data you need for yourself. It's pointless anyway, no doctor would advise against vaccinating so what information would you expect to get from them?

How would the collective feel if vaccination were made compulsory here?

I'd be against it, but I also vaccinated my kids. You should have the choice even though its moronic not to do so.

Due to an illness and a febrile convulsion I wasn't vaccinated against mumps or measels and guess what I got mumps. Never had measels though and not been vaccinated against it yet either.

I believe we have an inalienable and godgiven right to spread potentially dangerous diseases to others. My right to a kneejerk, deceit-led objection to vaccinations is surely more important than other people's right to not die.

Depends. A lot of the principle behind mass vaccination doesn't relate to the individual risk your child has of suffering harm from that illness, but the need to achieve a herd immunity

Not really because the risk from the vaccine is tiny and the potential for harm from measels or whatever is large. Being too stupid to balance risks and consequences is no barrier to being a parent

Do people really and truly believe the hogwash conspiracies around vaccinations?

Sadly, yes. The Internet and the media are awash with misinformation (and I'd love half an hour in a room with Andrew Wakefield and a baseball bat). For a recent high-profile example see: https://twitter.com/JimCarrey/status/616049450243338240

Not really because the risk from the vaccine is tiny and the potential for harm from measels or whatever is large. Being too stupid to balance risks and consequences is no barrier to being a parent

I'd agree that most parents who refuse MMR are not properly balancing risk and benefit. They just read something in the Daily Mail.

The point I was trying to make was in response to the idea that it is neglectful of your individual child. Stopping your kids from getting MMR is more about the risk to other, unvaccinated or immune-compromised groups than it is about the risk to their own children. It's less a parenting issue than it is a social responsibility issue.

If you live in a town where MMR coverage is 95%, then the herd immunity makes the risk to an unvaccinated but otherwise healthy child much, much smaller, simply because the virus is very unlikely to get a foothold in the community, so there is a very small chance of coming into contact with it. If you live in London, where rates are much lower, then the risk to an individual child rises.

MMR is a pretty safe vaccine, but no vaccine would ever be described as 100% safe, so the risk/benefit equation might well be a bit closer in some circumstances compared to others.

I would repeat that I don't believe a word of the MMR Autism thing, and both my children received MMR, mostly because I think it is the socially responsible thing to do.

Well put.

MMR is a pretty safe vaccine

The whole mercury / thiomersal thing is bollocks of the highest order, not least because it hasn't been used in the vast majority of vaccines for about 15 years (and totally in the UK IIRC). Somewhat ironically, it was removed due to public concerns rather than any actual evidence that it wasn't safe, and that then just fuelled the suspicions of the great unwashed.

People are idiots, film at 11.

Yeah, here.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/vaccine-ingredients.aspx

Thiomersal is no longer used in any of the vaccines routinely given to babies and young children in the NHS childhood immunisation programme.

And in the US,

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228

So even if there was a link between Thiomersal / MMR and Autism, which there isn't, it's moot anyway because it's no longer present.

If you sign something that says that your child will never use the NHS for treatment of the illness the vaccination is targeting, but will pay for treatment privately - then they shouldn't have to have the vaccination.

Some people can't be vaccinated for medical reasons, eg allergic reactions.

By not giving your child a vaccine, you are contributing to the breakdown of herd immunity and increase the risk to those people who genuinely cannot be vaccinated.

So it's not even a question of paying for your own care, it's a question of compensating those who you have harmed as well. The anti-vaxxers are a symptom of our idiot culture obsessed with individualism.

Martinhutch... I understand how herd immunity works but even when benefitting from it the risk of what could happen if you get measels far outweighs the risk from the vaccine

If vaccination uptake is poor in some locations and communities, there must be a reason, and simply labelling the folk involved as thickies who need decisions made for them is lazy stuff.

Usually it is because they are thickies or uneducated. You will never convince these people by trying to gain their trust, the world is now awash with more information than certain classes of individuals can handle. Society is becoming increasingly unable to tell objective truth from lies and propaganda.

what could happen [b]if[/b] you get measels

Of course, but it's the 'if' that's most important in determining measles-related risk for an otherwise healthy child, and that will vary depending on where you live in the UK. It's a moot point, obviously. Kids should be vaccinated, partly for their own personal protection, but mainly for the herd protection of those who for whatever reason can't protect themselves. Whether that's enough to justify mandatory immunisation is another matter. Personally I think it would be counterproductive in terms of the trust between the healthcare community and families.

IIRC one person died in the UK in 2013 from measles-related complications. An immunocompromised adult, I think. Hugely more people die every year because of flu complications. On the face of it mandatory flu immunisation for target groups, and perhaps even the general population, makes more sense.

Society is becoming increasingly unable to tell objective truth from lies and propaganda.

'Twas ever thus.

IIRC one person died in the UK in 2013 from measles-related complications. An immunocompromised adult, I think. Hugely more people die every year because of flu complications. On the face of it mandatory flu immunisation for target groups, and perhaps even the general population, makes more sense.

Except that only one person died due to the fact we have a very high coverage of measles vaccinations. If we swapped that for flu vaccines the rate would change massively.

Personally: I think if you have children and you want them to attend any educational establishment (kindergarten, primary; public and private) as a parent you should be obliged to vaccinate them by law. If you want to drive a car on your private estate you don't need a licence, but hit the public roads and it changes. Same with vaccination.

Herd Immunity isn't [i]just[/i] about protecting the unvaccinated or the immunocompromised by the way.

There is the (less comfortable) issue that vaccines are not 100% effective in individuals. In some people a vaccine simply might not take properly. But that's fine as long as the rest of the surrounding herd is immune.

In other words, anti-vaxers could potentially endanger the health of your own vaccinated children.

So I can understand comments about wanting to exclude unvaccinated children from school.

On the face of it mandatory flu immunisation for target groups, and perhaps even the general population, makes more sense.

Except the flu jab this year was widely acknowledged to be fairly ineffective?

Northwind - Member
I believe we have an inalienable and godgiven right to spread potentially dangerous diseases to others. My right to a kneejerk, deceit-led objection to vaccinations is surely more important than other people's right to not die.

Genius - never seen it said better. 🙂

Except the flu jab this year was widely acknowledged to be fairly ineffective?

Because there's no such thing as "the" flu. They immunise based on best guesses of what particular strain of flu might happen to rear its head in the coming seasons, its a bit like immunising based on weather forecasts.

In vaccination debates I was involved in when my son was younger, a number of anti-vax mums' responses to the herd immunity said their priority was their child, not society.

a number of anti-vax mums' responses to the herd immunity said their priority was their child, not society.

Even taking that selfish but understandable stance as read, it's still no credible reason not to vaccinate.

I agree Cougar, but that's the stance they take.

Classic Game Theory. Personally, and professionally, the US have got it right. Speaking as someone who's partner suffered humble chickenpox at the age of 30 - it wasn't pretty and about 30 people a year die from it.

Some poor teenager will probably die in September in their first term at University too. Herd immunity works for the benefit of society and those too sick (immunocompromised) to have the vaccine.