[Closed] Compulsory Vaccination of Children

In fact, one woman attempted to explain to me that herd immunity was nonsense, using tetanus as an example!

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.

There's good reasons why we don't vaccinate against chickenpox; it increases the risk of shingles in adulthood. (I don't remember the actual logic, would have to google.)

here,

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/chickenpox-vaccine-questions-answers.aspx

There's a worry that introducing chickenpox vaccination for all children could increase the risk of chickenpox and shingles in older people.

Whilst chickenpox during childhood is unpleasant, the vast majority of children recover quickly and easily. In adults, chickenpox is more severe and the risk of complications increases with age.

If a childhood chickenpox vaccination programme was introduced people would not catch chickenpox as children (as the infection would no longer circulate in areas where the majority of children had been vaccinated). This would leave unvaccinated children (there will always be a few who are unable or choose not to have the vaccine) susceptible to contracting chickenpox as adults when they are more likely to develop a more severe infection or a secondary complication, or in pregnancy when there is a risk of the infection harming the baby.

We could also see a significant increase in cases of shingles in adults. Adults who are naturally exposed to chickenpox (such as through contact with infected children) receive a natural boosting of their chickenpox antibodies which prevents the chickenpox virus (which remains dormant in the body after chickenpox infection) from reactivating in their bodies in the majority of cases and causing shingles.

If you vaccinate children against chickenpox, you lose this natural boosting so current levels of immunity in adults will drop and more shingles will occur.

IIRC chickenpox vaccine isn't particularly good either (at least it wasnt a few years ago)

I think there are two slightly different issues here. I agree that you *should* get your children vaccinated. Babybgoode is.

But, I disagree that you *must*. My sister is a GP and her husband a consultant and both, via their work, do not particularly like Western medical philosophy and treatments (to the extent my sister is no longer a practising Dr).

They have chosen not to get their children vaccinated. Now,whether they are right or wrong in that decision, should the State be able to drag the children kicking and screaming and against their parents will and foreceably inject them with drugs their parents fundamentally disagree with?

Move it on a step. Current thinking is that all alduts over a certain age (45 I think) should take statins. This is something that I do not want to do but what if they made it compulsory? How would I our you feel about being made to take a medication you did not want.

Now I appreciate that the risk to others by me not taking statins is no whereas the is a risk to others with not having your children vaccinated but the principal of mandatory medication is the same in both cases.

That is the question I posed, not the rights and wrongs of vaccination but whether the State should be able to force anyone to give their children medication against their will.

As I say, imo two slightly different issues.

I think the thing that clouds the issue, as you point out, is that the decision not to vaccinate a child impacts on the health of other children and adults.

If you just want to examine the right of the state to overrule parents for the health of their own child then look at cases where medical intervention is against the religious beliefs of the parents (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses).

Follow the money.

At GrahamS, yes aware of such cases but they tend to be where the child's life is in danger, on a case by case basis and often decided by a court weighing up the individual circumstances of the case.

As I said in my Op the bit I am uncomfortable is the State deciding on a blanket basis what parents must medicate their children with-regardless of the reason for that medication.

I do believe that Andrew Wakefield was on to something but was pushed off the path.

As I said in my Op the bit I am uncomfortable is the State deciding on a blanket basis what parents must medicate their children with-regardless of the reason for that medication.

Me too.

But I'm also uncomfortable with other people's decisions increasing the risk to my kids.

It's a tricky balance for sure. As it always is when weighing personal liberties against the overall good of society.

No, Andrew Wakefield is a complete ****er and needs to be shot for the shit storm he caused.

But, I still think it is for the parent to decide and not the State regardless of how misguided (or indeed well intended) that decision is.

But, I disagree that you *must*. My sister is a GP and her husband a consultant and both, via their work, do not particularly like Western medical philosophy and treatments (to the extent my sister is no longer a practising Dr).

They have chosen not to get their children vaccinated. Now,whether they are right or wrong in that decision, should the State be able to drag the children kicking and screaming and against their parents will and foreceably inject them with drugs their parents fundamentally disagree with?

It's obvious that you respect and admire your sister, which is nice, but she REALLY ought to know better.

And why the emotive "kicking and screaming" bit? Did she not vaccinate her poor kiddiwinks because they don't like injections?

Some kids don't like going to school, but that's a legal requirement for a very good reason.

I feel the same about vaccination and voting FWIW.

I do believe that Andrew Wakefield was on to something

Then [i]"Follow the money"[/i]:

It all began with Wakefield’s relationship with one British solicitor named Richard Barr...
..These are the sort of children that were being encouraged to contact [b]Dr. Wakefield, who, as we know was ultimately paid £435,643 in fees[/b], plus £3,910 expenses by Barr. But that was chump change compared to the amount of money that Wakefield and his cronies envisioned based on the work they were doing at the Royal Free Hospital..

"And on Wednesday, with the news that the boy–still on the ward–might have Crohn’s disease, the doctor produced a remarkable document. It was an 11 page draft of a scheme behind the vaccine scare, now revealed for the first time in full.

The document was headed “Inventor/school/investor meeting 1.”15 Based on a patent Wakefield had filed in March 1995 claiming that “Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis may be diagnosed by detecting measles virus in bowel tissue, bowel products or body fluids,”16 it proposed starting a company that could reap huge returns from molecular viral diagnostic tests. It predicted [b]a turnover from Britain and America of up to £72.5m a year.[/b]"

-- http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/01/12/andrew-wakefield-in-it-for-the-money-all/

@cha****ng. In my opinion she should know better but both her and hubby are trained medical professionals who have decided they do not like Western medicine much at all having worked in it for 10 years plus.

As I say, I disagree with their decision but fully support their right to choose.

Education is different, it is not a drug that is injected in to you (although Matrix style learning is appealing) and actually, there is no legal requirement to send them to school. If you feel school is not an appropriate environment for your child you can educate them at home.

If you want them to go to school but disagree with the State's idea of what a good education is you can send the to say a Montessori school etc.

There is a great deal of parental choice when it comes to education...

As I say, imo two slightly different issues.

Two wholly different issues. One directly affects the life of the person making that decision, the other affects the life of an innocent and potentially those around them.

I do believe that Andrew Wakefield was on to something but was pushed off the path.

It's a shame that path wasn't on the edge of a cliff, it would have saved a lot of lives.

I knew you would mention home schooling. Let's be honest, that's not in anyone's interest.

Wriggle all you want, you're wrong on this.

I should really know better than to engage with cranks on the internet.

Oh I am not a crank. I wholely endorse and support vaccination but do not think it should be mandatory on the basis I do not think the State should have the power to decide what medications people must take.

Strongly recommend-yes, educate - yes; force - no.

I'm not swung either way on whether it should be mandatory either. But I don't agree that it's an issue regarding the state mandating "what medications people must take," rather it's a child protection issue.

Making poor decisions about your own well-being is ultimately your own lookout; making poor decisions regarding someone else may well justify intervention to protect them from their idiot parents.

I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with mandatory vaccination, but I am sure that comparing it to adult medication is a straw man.

The keypoint not being taken into account is that the children are not choosing the idiot parents are.

Contrary to the general acceptance of vaccination on here I am personally unconvinced of their effectiveness. I have read extensively on the topic, but i would say I have been looking at pre-1980 studies at this point. I am aware things have changed but am still being open minded to it.

I personally have had all my vaccinations. My wife however hasn't had any, her mum got a major scare with her older brother who was allergic to egg white. The doctor said it would have likely disabled him. So she made a decision to not vaccinate the rest of their kids.

The fundamental belief that I disagree with is that getting ill is bad for your health. There have been a few recent studies showing a startling connection with the absence of illness in Children leading to leukaemia.

They are now experimenting with the herpes virus and finding it effective against fighting skin cancer. Essentially triggering your immune system to recognise the cancerous cells and destroy them. There is similar research going on with polio and certain types of cancers.

I am not saying I have all the answers, quite the opposite, but I object to this promotion of vaccination as the answer to all of our problems. It is cited and advertised as 'the best protection' in those words. Thats bullshit, the best protection you can have is good hygiene standards, clean/warm and dry housing, and good diet and exercise.

NZ (where im living) has an astounding number of respiratory diseases for a first world country, the reason is due to poor housing standards and nothing to do with vaccination

@cougar - as I say tough one to call and have enjoyed a pretty mature debate (certainly by STW standards)!

@anagallis - there are thousands of decisions parents make that may or may not adversely affect their children's health, wellbeing and future prospects; do we legislate on them all.

That is what parental responsibility comes in.

I got babybgoode vaccinated but if I found out another child at his nursery hadn't - whilst think their parents mad, misguided fools I would still defend their right to choose what [i]they[/i] think best for [i]their[/i] child.

It is cited and advertised as 'the best protection' in those words. Thats bullshit, the best protection you can have is good hygiene standards, clean/warm and dry housing, and good diet and exercise.

I am personally unconvinced of their effectiveness.

Fortunately for the rest of us, their efficacy does not require your belief. This isn't Homeopathy we're discussing. Come back when you've contracted polio and we'll talk.

The fundamental belief that I disagree with is that getting ill is bad for your health. There have been a few recent studies showing a startling connection with the absence of illness in Children leading to leukaemia.

They are now experimenting with the herpes virus and finding it effective against fighting skin cancer. Essentially triggering your immune system to recognise the cancerous cells and destroy them. There is similar research going on with polio and certain types of cancers.

You're disagreeing with a "fundamental belief" which is nothing of the sort. What you describe is exactly how some immunisation works; the smallpox vaccine, as a random example, is a deactivated version of the virus which kicks your body into developing its own immunity.

My wife however hasn't had any, her mum got a major scare with her older brother who was allergic to egg white. The doctor said it would have likely disabled him. So she made a decision to not vaccinate the rest of their kids.

Some people cannot be vaccinated for one reason or another, but we cannot extrapolate from that "all people shouldn't be vaccinated"; in fact, the fact that some people can't have vaccines is precisely why everyone else should.

Thats bullshit, the best protection you can have is good hygiene standards, clean/warm and dry housing, and good diet and exercise.

True fact, people who bathe regularly never get cancer.

This is a non sequitur, is it not? You're arguing against vaccines because other things can make you ill? That's like asserting that it's pointless wearing sunblock because you know someone who was hit by a car.

@danny

I got babybgoode vaccinated but if I found out another child at his nursery hadn't - whilst think their parents mad, misguided fools I would still defend their right to choose what they think best for their child.

Unfortunately it is their decision about what [i]they[/i] think best for [i]other people's[/i] children too.

got babybgoode vaccinated but if I found out another child at his nursery hadn't - whilst think their parents mad, misguided fools I would still defend their right to choose what they think best for their child.

Why? Why can a childs best interests be thrown away due to the facts their parents are idiots?

The fundamental belief that I disagree with is that getting ill is bad for your health

First class gibberish well done sir

They have chosen not to get their children vaccinated. Now,whether they are right or wrong in that decision, should the State be able to drag the children kicking and screaming and against their parents will and foreceably inject them with drugs their parents fundamentally disagree with?

Yup the state should be allowed to do so.

That or the children should be barred from any public space, that the state operates.

@anagallis - there are thousands of decisions parents make that may or may not adversely affect their children's health, wellbeing and future prospects; do we legislate on them all.

If those decisions kill other people, yes.

The fundamental belief that I disagree with is that getting ill is bad for your health. There have been a few recent studies showing a startling connection with the absence of illness in Children leading to leukaemia.

Generally, things that can kill you are bad for your health.

The anti-vaccination campaigns could only happen in societies where most illnesses had been eradicated due to previous successful vaccination programmes. Or in primitive societies where it was seen as a form of witchcraft.

I was astounded as a kid when I learned how many of my parents friends had died in childhood, and polio scythed through my generation.

And as an adult with an interest in genealogy, the deathrate in my grandparents generation was even worse. On one side out of 10 siblings, 5 survived childhood. These were people who understood hygiene and were scrupulous about it - they knew about "germs".

Save your anti-vaccination stance for consenting adults, but protect your kids.

@epicylo you should go chug on a big flagon of ZMAPP

What on earth does that have to do with anything?

@epicyclo-who's being anti-vax?

I certainly am not. I'm very pro vaccination and strongly believe that children should be vaccinated but I also firmly believe that if a parent is firmly against vaccination then they should be able to make that decision.

There's good reasons why we don't vaccinate against chickenpox; it increases the risk of shingles in adulthood. (I don't remember the actual logic, would have to google.)

Oh I wouldn't advocate vaccination of children - it's too contagious and needs too high coverage for proper herd immunity. It's for the few percent who escape infection to adulthood that require catch-up that I would vaccinate.

The [url= http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1501184 ]shingles vaccine[/url] also looks very promising for immune boosting. I'll want it in time!

As the dad of a child who had an allergic reaction to a vaccine at 4 months old, I can see why some would be reluctant to vaccinate. It was a very scary experience.

What I don't understand about the vaccine argument is that there are loads of other examples of group behaviour that leads to many thousands of deaths, but does not receive the same mouth frothing reaction. Air pollution leads to 29,000 deaths in the UK alone. Where are the mouth frothers on this point? Calling on all cars to be banned etc... Mouth frothers, can you explain please ? If you were really concerned about other people's kids and the infirm you would be campaigning about this as well.

We left the vaccine program for a while and came back to them later. As a parent, that has to be my choice.

As a parent, that has to be my choice.

Providing sperm doesnt make you best placed to make such decisions

So in other words your children in effect become state property?

So in other words your children in effect become state property?

Better then them being the property of idiot parents.

What I don't understand about the vaccine argument is that there are loads of other examples of group behaviour that leads to many thousands of deaths, but does not receive the same mouth frothing reaction. Air pollution leads to 29,000 deaths in the UK alone. Where are the mouth frothers on this point? Calling on all cars to be banned etc...

Easy, cars serve a utilitarian value to the economy that at the moment outweighs people not dying - without them a lot more people would dying due to reverting back to an 1800's economy. People getting sick doesn't serve the economy or society, although I guess more old people dying might.

idiot parents

Like the ones driving there kids a few hundred metres down the road , contributing to 29,000 deaths ?

@Tom_W in that case there should be thousands of children under state ownership for thousands of reasons.

Why so at parents who do not get their children vaccinated. Not all are idiots.

What about parents who smoke, parents who speed, parents who let their children stay up way to late to the detriment of both their health and educational prospects etc?

Like the ones driving there kids a few hundred metres down the road , contributing to 29,000 deaths ?

If the state had it's way, it'd make them walk to reduce obesity rates. Not really helping are yourself are you?

Why so at parents who do not get their children vaccinated. Not all are idiots.

Yes, yes they are.

What about parents who smoke, parents who speed, parents who let their children stay up way to late to the detriment of both their health and educational prospects etc?

All idiots, but fortunately they don't usually harm other peoples kids.

I, for one, look forward to the arrival of your brave new world.

You don't even need to have some brave new world dictatorship to have compulsory vaccinations.

All you have to do is simply decide that the right to be free from avoidable disease overrides the rights of others not to be given vaccines.

You're already told what you can and can't do to your kids (like not being a nonce) by the state - don't see how vaccines are any different.

My point was the unbalanced argument that all parents should be shot for not vaccinating (even in extenuating circumstances) vs the lack of argument for pollution control which leads to many more deaths.

By the way, the Dutch don't have an 1800's economy.

By the way, the Dutch don't have an 1800's economy

They still have cars.

vs the lack of argument for pollution control which leads to many more deaths.

It only kills more because of vaccines, you massive genius.

You're already told what you can and can't do to your kids (like not being a nonce) by the state - don't see how vaccines are any different.

if you can't see the difference there is not really any hope for you.

if you can't see the difference there is not really any hope for you.

So killing kids isn't as bad as being a nonce then? 😀 If I'm going to argue with idiots, I'm going to fight you on your own hilarious level.

I'm not anti vaccine, my kids are vaccinated.

It only kills more because of vaccines, you massive genius.

Exactly, and reducing pollution. Will kill fewer than the 29,000 it does now.

But you seem to think that it's fine to sacrifice these people, as long as you have a few extra quid in your pocket. Nice!