Call for vaccine opt-out penalty

[Pammy]

This is actually a tricky example, I agree.

Reason being - I'm not totally up to date on this, but I believe there were suggestions to vaccinate girls and boys. Now boys can't get cervical cancer. Hence, they would receive the vaccine solely for the benefit of society (so they can't pass on the virus), with no obvious benefit to themselves.

It is also a unique case in that you can protect yourself from catching the disease simply by practising safe sex, which is not the case with e.g. measles (unless you run around in a full-body protection suit). Hence, again, if you will never have sex, or only have it with one partner (who also chooses only one partner), then there is no benefit to you (nor to society). The question is whether parents can make that choice for you - and I think not!

Yes, tricky one - haven't entirely made up my mind on it!

[469er]

Ooh, lovely, this thread's starting up again.

Yes, this is an interesting example. In a way, it is a less 'loaded' one, in that, as Pammy says, there are lifestyle choices you can make to protect yourself, even if you, or a substantial proportion of the population, haven't been vaccinated.

For me, it has had the interesting effect of making me realise that much of the childhood vaccination debate mobilises my detestation of being told what to do. I feel broadly pro HPV vaccination (though might not if someone were insisting that forcing it upon my child were the only responsible course of action!). If I had a daughter (I don't), I would encourage (but not coerce) her to have it. I take the view that teenage sex happens even where discouraged, and pretending otherwise accomplishes nothing. As a mother of sons, I would still encourage it (pace everything I have said above about my kids' immune status). I will also be providing my sons with lots of condoms and teaching them how to use them!! (They'll love that, I'm sure!) Before anyone asks, I would do the same for daughters.

Interestingly, to go back to this thing of being told what to do, I think one of the things I have so hated about the snottiness of doctors towards parents who are cautious about vaccination is what I perceive as the lack of logic and consistency behind it. As I mentioned a few posts back, I had an MMR jab last week. I had mumps as a child, and was vaccinated against rubella aged about 11, but am of that age group who pre-date MMR. I happened not to catch measles as a child, so could theoretically have picked it up and passed it on at any time in the last (ahem) years, not unlikely, having 3 kids and living in a low uptake area. Yet not one doctor I've ever discussed vaccinations with has ever asked about my status or suggested getting a jab. I would certainly have done it long ago if it had occurred to me. It sometimes seems as though vaccination campaigns are all about targets and politics - MMR is desperately important because the DH is determined not to be thwarted, whereas BCG, well, hey, let's not bother. Kids under 5 are desperately important because that's part of the protocol, but adults - even ones who hang around with lots of under-5s - well, whatever... I think it really undermines the government's stated position on herd immunity.

I'm not sure what the intended policy re HPV vaccination is, but if the plan is to roll it out to all kids, then there will without doubt be an uncompromising PR campaign on the part of the DH, to go along with the concerted sales campaign that the reps are already taking into GP surgeries. Given the theoretical capacity of individuals to protect themselves, it will be interesting to see how the vehemence of such a campaign compares to others.

[trouble]

I think anything that involves sexual practises is always going to be tricky. To ask a young person at the age of 12 if they plan to have safe sex throughout there life or have only one partner............its very early in life to be commiting to either. For what ever the reasons a lot of young people (and adults) have unprotected sex at least once throughout their lifes. Even if they only have one partner that partner may for many reasons not be honest about their relationships either before or after commiting to them.

Even in societies where abstenance is promoted and adhered to the question of what counts as sexual contact becomes an issue. In New zealand studies young people commited to abstenance programs began to have more anal and oral sex (both risk factors for HPV) and in the US similar programs have seen levels of oral sex increase at an alarming rate. Even more worrying is the documentation which shows young people not considering these acts as risky or even seeing them as sexual acts. Public health officals are using these figures to support the vaccine in spite of religious beiefs.

Sex, religion, civil liberitys and health both public and individual. I doubt anyone is ever going to find a solution everyone agrees with.

[469er]

Originally Posted by trouble

Even in societies where abstenance is promoted and adhered to the question of what counts as sexual contact becomes an issue. In New zealand studies young people commited to abstenance programs began to have more anal and oral sex (both risk factors for HPV) and in the US similar programs have seen levels of oral sex increase at an alarming rate. Even more worrying is the documentation which shows young people not considering these acts as risky or even seeing them as sexual acts.

Really interesting. I hadn't even begun to think about issues like this. Do you have any refs?

[Rich' Trash]

EDIT: I realise the discussion has moved on now.. I'm referring to the ethics of forced MMR vaccine.

469er, thank you for taking the time to make so many well thought out replies in this thread. You've really given me insight into how some parents think about these things.

Although it has given me an insight into your feelings, I'm still struggling with your objective reasoning. Being forced into doing things by the government is not a new or an unacceptable thing in itself - I'm sure there are many things you submitt to regarding your child. Sitting SATs for example, social expectations of decipline and correct behaviour, not kicking the shit out of your child etc etc. So, for that reason, I'm going to side step the issue of 'its wrong for government to say whats right for my child'. Although your reaction to a new social control is entirely normal - I'm going to stick to objectively examining the benefits and detriments, rather than the ethics of the method by which it is implemented.

People have already outlined the benefit of vaccinating children, so I'm not going to talk to much about that. Rather, I will challenge the percieved detriments. Forgive me if I've missed something, but the only reason you've given against compulsory vaccination is the harm it would do to children who have an altered immune status. I would imagine (again, correct me if I'm wrong) if a child was diagnosised with such a syndrome the clinician would know not give the child the vaccine. So, what we're talking about here is the risk to a very small group of children who have not yet had the altered immune status diagnosised; an even smaller group within a small group of the population.

Would I be right in saying that the number of children that fit into the above defined group would be comparable to the number of children that suffer severe allergic reactions to pollen or nettle stings? Yet, parents still choose to expose their child to flowers. The benefits are fairly minor to the child compared to the benefits of being immunised - but yet parents still choose to take the risk. The detriment are equivical and just as likely however. Is this a fair analogy?

[Pammy]

It really is difficult...Where do you draw the line?
E.g. it has been shown that circumcision can reduce the spread if HIV. I read that some countries in Africa were therefore considering that everyone should be circumcised. Even aside the problems of side-effects/risks (due to bad hygiene mostly), could this be ethically justified...?

[Pammy]

Sorry, my post was in response to the moved on thread, regarding sexual health...

[469er]

Originally Posted by Rich' Trash

469er, thank you for taking the time to make so many well thought out replies in this thread. You've really given me insight into how some parents think about these things.

My pleasure. But I should admit that I'm procrastinating badly, as I should be writing about stroke prevention instead.

I'm going to side step the issue of 'its wrong for government to say whats right for my child'.

In fairness, this is not quite what I am saying. What I am saying is that the government - quite reasonably - is not in a position to examine the effects of its policies in their minute detail on each individual. As far as individual children are concerned, parents (sometimes) are better placed to make the best decisions. All I am suggesting is that it is better for governments, doctors, parents and children if we acknowledge that fact. Compulsion policies do not.

Forgive me if I've missed something, but the only reason you've given against compulsory vaccination is the harm it would do to children who have an altered immune status.

That was the example I gave. It's the only one I know about, because it happens to affect me. I daresay there are others.

Would I be right in saying that the number of children that fit into the above defined group would be comparable to the number of children that suffer severe allergic reactions to pollen or nettle stings?

Lord, I've no idea!

Yet, parents still choose to expose their child to flowers. The benefits are fairly minor to the child compared to the benefits of being immunised - but yet parents still choose to take the risk. The detriment are equivical and just as likely however. Is this a fair analogy?

Um, not really, I think I would have to say. If you had no idea your child had an allergy to nettles, why would you keep them away? But if you had a fair inkling that they did, even if not a proven allergy, then of course you would keep them away from nettles, wouldn't you? I would, anyway. I expect that makes me one of those irritating overprotective middle-class parents someone was ranting about earlier.

Does this clarify? Happy to continue in this vein, but may have to go offline and do some work soon!

[469er]

Originally Posted by Pammy

It really is difficult...Where do you draw the line?
E.g. it has been shown that circumcision can reduce the spread if HIV. I read that some countries in Africa were therefore considering that everyone should be circumcised. Even aside the problems of side-effects/risks (due to bad hygiene mostly), could this be ethically justified...?

No, no, no and no! And if I had a willy I would probably be less equivocal!

[trouble]

Most of my info comes from recent child protection training which was specifically aimed at proffesionals working with young people who are of the age of first sexual encounter. There are a few reports which I cant access cause i dont have an athens password but ive included some media links bellow if you want to look further.

As with everything there are also a lot of reports which state the opposite and a lot of government pressure form the Bush administration because they have put a lot of money ino abstinance based programs.


Abstinence only programmes do not change sexual behaviour, Texas study shows -- Hopkins Tanne 330 (7487): 326 -- BMJ
sBMJ | Saving sex for sexual health
Many Teens Who Take 'Virginity Pledges' Substitute Other High-Risk Behavior for Intercourse, Study Says
Classically Liberal: The secret meaning of abstinence programs.
BBC NEWS | Health | No-sex programmes 'not working'
DawnReel.com | AIDS