Originally posted by TeinosukeI'm sorry if I am unable to produce exact mathematical formulas by which to decide every political issue that comes before me. It seems you are the one insisting on some "bright line", not me. My formulation was meant to be a guideline, but with due deference to parent's decisions. I find nothing in your posts to indicate that the wishes of parents has any bearing at all on what coercive measures can be taken against them if they make decisions regarding their children that are at odds with the wishes of the majority's representatives. This seems to be a rather constant theme of yours.
[b]The words "readily capable". Measles might be debatable. Rubella is an exceedingly mild disease.
So how capable is "readily capable"? If "measles it debatable", at what point do we draw the line? Of course I'm aware that rubella is very mild - so mild that many victims may hardly be aware they have it. On the other hand, if they come into contact ...[text shortened]... an't help feeling that a kind of prisoner's dilemma situation is likely to result.[/b]
Last I checked, medical professionals are not empowered to make laws which can bind individuals to do certain things subject to the coercive powers of the State if they don't. Maybe you could cite to a political system where the converse is true.
I suspect that a rather large majority of parents would elect that their children get the vaccinations that are being discussed here esp. if they were provided free of charge. I see no compelling reason to force the few who wouldn't to do so unless their are very significant risks to the general populace by their not doing so (again sorry this doesn't provide an exact formula).
Originally posted by no1marauderBeating up children doesn't pose significant health risks to the population in general, do you believe we should allow parents to do that as well?
I'm sorry if I am unable to produce exact mathematical formulas by which to decide every political issue that comes before me. It seems you are the one insisting on some "bright line", not me. My formulation was meant to be a guideline, but with due deference to parent's decisions. I find nothing in your posts to indicate that the wishes of parents has a ...[text shortened]... eral populace by their not doing so (again sorry this doesn't provide an exact formula).
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, but then it wouldn't be true that "reasonable minds can differ on the consequences of [that] particular practice".
Beating up children doesn't pose significant health risks to the population in general, do you believe we should allow parents to do that as well?
Nice try but still a Strawman.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm not claiming that parents "own" their children and thus can do anything with them that they please (as KN's post suggests). I'm stating that parents are naturally empowered to make decisions for their children since the child is not of a maturity to make them on their own. I assume no one would dispute that adults are free to decide what medical treatments they desire to receive (absent conditions such as we have already discussed); I would hold that that right also applies to such decisions for their children.
Yeah, well I see it's not possible to come to exact formulae about these issues, but that's precisely my point; the fact that the question of whether particular diseases are serious enough to warrant compulsory vaccination is debatable, and the fact that the issue is one of public safety, suggests to me that the question is legitimately one that can be determined by the collective or their representatives in government.
In your own country, mandatory vaccination laws date back to 1809. And I note that this has been upheld by the Supreme Court - admittedly in the case of a very serious disease. According to a CRS report for Congress:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS21414.pdf
Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) is viewed as the seminal case regarding a state’s or municipality’s authority to institute a mandatory vaccination program as an exercise of its police powers. In Jacobson, the Supreme Court upheld a Massachusetts law that gave municipal boards of health the authority to require the vaccination of persons over the age of 21 against smallpox, and determined that the vaccination program instituted in the city of Cambridge had “a real and substantial relation to the protection of the public health and safety.” In upholding the law, the Court noted that “the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.”
Last I checked, medical professionals are not empowered to make laws which can bind individuals to do certain things subject to the coercive powers of the State if they don't.
What I was suggesting is that medical professionals would give advice on the basis of which politicians will make relevant laws. We both live in representative democracies, not direct democracies, and plenty of decisions are made in this way.
I suspect that a rather large majority of parents would elect that their children get the vaccinations that are being discussed here esp. if they were provided free of charge. I see no compelling reason to force the few who wouldn't to do so unless their are very significant risks to the general populace by their not doing so.
You're probably right. In order to guarantee maximum takeup of vaccination while not infringing basic rights, I think on reflection I'd endorse an opt-out system - vaccinations would be provided in schools, and parental consent should be assumed (obviously, with parents being advised in advance that vaccinations will take place) unless it is explicitly withdrawn.
Many countries have quasi-mandatory vaccination programmes: for instance, in Australia, certain benefits (eg, family allowance) are made dependent on vaccine compliance, and before children enrol in school their parents are obliged to provide certificates of vaccination or a declaration of refusal. In other words, vaccination is not mandatory, but it's very strongly encouraged. Numerous US states apparently also mandate vaccination before enrolment in public schools.
I find nothing in your posts to indicate that the wishes of parents has any bearing at all on what coercive measures can be taken against them if they make decisions regarding their children that are at odds with the wishes of the majority's representatives.
I happen to think the rights of the children to sound medical provision may outweigh the rights of the parents in this instance. But if vaccination is made not compulsory but the default position (ie, children will be vaccinated unless parents explicitly withdraw consent) would this satisfy your objections?
Originally posted by TeinosukeI see no sound reason for an "opt-out" provision. Give parents a consent form and appropriate medical information so they can make an informed decision.
Yeah, well I see it's not possible to come to exact formulae about these issues, but that's precisely my point; the fact that the question of whether particular diseases are serious enough to warrant compulsory vaccination is debatable, and the fact that the issue is one of public safety, suggests to me that the question is legitimately one that can be det ...[text shortened]... ccinated unless parents explicitly withdraw consent) would this satisfy your objections?
Originally posted by sh76The study is actually about the triple vaccine.
http://tinyurl.com/2g77mbu
[quote]A decade-old study authored by former British surgeon Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been deemed "fraudulent" in an editorial in the British Medical Journal.
The authors of the editorial say Wakefield--who was stripped of his medical license after Brian Deer of the Sunday Times exposed flaws in the study in 2004--manufactured p ...[text shortened]... t parents should be the ones to decide whether to incur the "risk" (if there is one)?
So, instead of a kid having 3 seperate vaccines, it recieves one with 3 different vaccines in it (diptheria, typhoid and polio, if I'm not mistaken, but you'd have to google it to be sure).
And the study recommended the vaccines being given seperately (and certainly not to stop giving them).
This, of course, costs a lot more. So the UK government had further research done into the matter (and obviously at the same time kept giving the triple vaccine).
The mere fact that they didn't postpone the triple vaccine whilst further research was being carried out and that "money" is involved should give pause to thought.
Most further studies I'm aware of have not connected autism (of any kind) to the triple vaccine. Most further studies, I'm aware of, have been funded by the UK government or the pharmaceutical industry who sells the UK government the triple vaccine.
It's been much wider than the UK. I think there was a massive study in Sweden for instance. And in Japan they got rid of the MMR vaccine. It had no effect on the rate of autism. MMR is probably the most tested vaccine in the world now, and no reputable study has found a link.
The problem with an "informed decision" is the amount of absolute rubbish there has been in the media about this. The issue has regularly featured in Ben Goldacre's bad science column/books, if you want more details.
Originally posted by no1marauderI think the only possible justification would be a free-rider problem. If disease is virtually eradicated by a vaccine but there are side effects, then you'd have an incentive to not inoculate your kid. So inoculation rates could be sub-optimal. Also, there is a lot of fear-mongering so the fringe opinions tend to have more audience than they should.
I'm sorry if I am unable to produce exact mathematical formulas by which to decide every political issue that comes before me. It seems you are the one insisting on some "bright line", not me. My formulation was meant to be a guideline, but with due deference to parent's decisions. I find nothing in your posts to indicate that the wishes of parents has a ...[text shortened]... eral populace by their not doing so (again sorry this doesn't provide an exact formula).
What if it is put as a condition to be a recipient of universal health care (as vaccines tend to be extremely cost effective)? Would you still see it as unacceptably forceful?
Originally posted by shavixmirAh, the gullible anti-capitalist falls prey to media fear-mongering because "there's money to be made". 😵
Most further studies, I'm aware of, have been funded by the UK government or the pharmaceutical industry who sells the UK government the triple vaccine.
Who sells to the UK government the three separate vaccines? The non-pharmaceutical industry?
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd I don't agree, parents should not be allowed to make decisions that cause grave risk to their children. That means vaccinating and blood transfusing when necessary, and no circumcisions.
No, but then it wouldn't be true that "reasonable minds can differ on the consequences of [that] particular practice".
Nice try but still a Strawman.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm not claiming that parents "own" their children and thus can do anything with them that they please (as KN's post suggests). I'm stating that parents are naturally em ...[text shortened]... cussed); I would hold that that right also applies to such decisions for their children.