Call for vaccine opt-out penalty

[Arch_Angel]

Originally Posted by 469er

I personally would like to see more street nudity, especially at this time of year, when the unexpected good weather brings us those very special expanses of mottled, pale flesh. Preferably with stubble.

Exactly...freedom to be nude. Doesn't hurt anyone and if anyone is offended they can stay inside Everyone can be a naked drug addict under my rules (Vote for Nik).

But yea, vaccinations for everyone....those adults that refuse don't get NHS treatment if they ever get the disease in question Red cross on their door then nail it up.

[469er]

So much for butting out of this thread - lol! - you all knew I wouldn't be able to, didn't you...

Originally Posted by Arch_Angel

Hence if a real reason cannot be found to stop a child getting vaccinated (a rational, medical reason involving evidence, not a lack of evidence for a negative) then it should be compulsory.

I really don't want to patronise anyone here - seriously, I really don't want/mean to, and I hope you know I wouldn't - but I do wonder if this is partly a parents vs non-parents debate.

As a parent, I don't need evidence, if I feel my children may be at risk. A suspicion, for which there may/may not yet be incontrovertible evidence, is quite enough. What I mean is, as a parent, I feel the burden of evidence falls on those who say I should do something to my child, not on me if I suspect it may not be such a good thing after all. I wonder if all the dogmatists on this thread may feel differently when they have children of their own - it's easy to speak hypothetically about what sort of parent you will be, and what decisions you will make on behalf of your children, before you have them.

For what interest it may hold, I think I can say that I don't know a single medical professional personally who didn't have huge qualms about giving their own children MMR. Whatever you know, or think you know, about the relative safety/inoccuousness of interventions, it is different when your own child's wellbeing is at stake, and the balance of probabilities falls into a whole differently-shaped curve.

Perhaps when we are all doctors (those of us who aren't already), we might remember this before rolling our eyes heavenwards at parents' stupidity/irresponsibility?

[heed]

there are a good many places in the world where this type of legislation already exists - not necessarily "give your child this vaccine or we will see you in court" but more like "your child will not attend school until s/he has received the following vaccines:" France, Canada, Australia, Sweden - so the idea is not a new one - but it does raise the issue of consent doesnt it?

Like Pammy said, as a parent you have the responsibility to safeguard your childs health, you have the right to refuse to vaccinate your child. But then, the child gets rubella and ends up infertile, or measles and has hearing problems the rest of its life etc etc. Your decision - but the consequences are very much the child's...... if a parent refused to consent to their child having a blood transfusion, all hell would break loose (ie because the child has never made an informed decision to be a Jehovah's Witness...) but if all hell breaks loose over a parents refusal to immunize a child? thats a breach of the parents rights? extreme examples i know - but demonstrable hippocracy all the same.

[agneishd]

certainly there is an issue of consent there, should be the doctor's role to convert the parents to their way of thinking, if they object to vaccinations

would work same way as JWs and blood transfusions

'course this legislation idea is good, cause not being vaccinated may be considered a 'social crime' (as was said earlier)
tough ethics...

[NorthernLight]

Tough ethics? I guess so, but there's a world of difference between trying to stop your child receiving a life-saving blood transfusion and not wanting to have your child vaccinated, which may or may not ever do them any harm.
If you start arguing about the chances of measles, then deafness or infertility, you're in the realms of high speculation. You may as well condemn the parent that lets their child walk to school because it might get hit by a car. Statistically, it's going to happen to someone's child.
Once the state starts interfering in these things, a dangerous precedent has been set. That's why, if you have a child in your hospital and it's about to die for lack of a transfusion, you'll be able to convince a judge to make it a ward of court to overrule the parents if they object to the transfusion. You won't get a judge to do that if you think the child hasn't had its MMR.
469er might be right that this is somewhat a parent/non-parent debate - except I don't have any kids just yet. Maybe I'm just a bit wary of the siren voices telling the world "we know what's best for you, do what we tell you" and looking to the law to enforce this, rather than actually thinking about why these things are so beneficial and how can we explain these benefits to the majority of our patients?

If you need the law to get vaccinations into 95% of your patients, I reckon you need some help with yr communication skills

[Arch_Angel]

I expect it is a parent vs non parent debate, pointing that out isn't a problem, and I don't mean to be patronising either, but I do want to point something out. I'm not calling you out or second guessing your judgement, it just seems a bit logically inconsistant:

As a parent, I don't need evidence, if I feel my children may be at risk. A suspicion, for which there may/may not yet be incontrovertible evidence, is quite enough.

Fine, so you're not vaccinating because of the possibility of a complication. However you know that there are conditions out there (that non vaccinated kids are suceptible to) that can without a shadow of a doubt harm. However, what we really need is a vaccination rate high enough so that in genuinely unknown cases (uncertain reaction due to genetics etc) the immunity of everyone else protects them from exposure and such. However to get to this we can't let people drop out for "bad" reasons or it won't protect genuine causes for concern. I expect that if more drop out the incidence rate will increase in a quicker than linear rate.

So yea, not a personal attack, but a comment on your stance

[SamTJ]

as a conscientious and cautious parent 469er are you not concernd that given the logically low* risk to your children from having the vaccine as opposed to the well know risks of them lacking immunity that you are exposing them probably to more danger?

*logically low risk otherwise given the large numbers vaccinated, this would have been studied sooner.

[469er]

Originally Posted by SamTJ

as a conscientious and cautious parent 469er are you not concernd that given the logically low* risk to your children from having the vaccine as opposed to the well know risks of them lacking immunity that you are exposing them probably to more danger?

Originally Posted by Arch_Angel

Fine, so you're not vaccinating because of the possibility of a complication.

Sorry, I may have misinterpreted what you were saying, Arch_Angel, and I also suspect I have made the mistake of assuming everyone would have read the thread from the start - unlikely at this point.

My kids (probably) carry a gene which predisposes them to autoimmune problems. Having done a lot of reading around this, I have concluded that vaccinations may carry unusual risks for them. As a result, I select which vaccinations I want them to have based on a slightly different risk/benefit ratio than I would be using if they did not have this gene. For me, there's no debate about, say, diphtheria or tetanus or meningitis, but measles or chicken pox is a different matter. None of this is intended as an apologia for parents who refuse vaccinations for no good reason (although I think I would defend their right to).

What I meant about not being able to prove a negative is that I have no proof that vaccinations would harm them. At present, there's a vacuum of proof. If and when more research is done into their gene, and it demonstrates that there's no risk, then I will gladly present myself at the next vaccination clinic. However, this is quite unlikely, because it is fairly newly identified, most research is focusing on the symptoms endured by people in whom the gene has been activated, and, IMO, Wakefield has made it unlikely that much unbiased research is going to go into the potential of vaccines to damage for a while.

My GP, who has taken the time to go through all of this with me, instead of saying things like "Do you want your baby to die??" (which, yes, has been said to me on several occasions!), thinks that I have a sound point, and has read some of the research. If vaccination were made compulsory, I guess he'd just have to stick those needles in while trying not to meet my eye. I guess the next person having to read the research would be my MP. Is that how anyone here wants to practise medicine?

Originally Posted by heed

Like Pammy said, as a parent you have the responsibility to safeguard your childs health, you have the right to refuse to vaccinate your child. But then, the child gets rubella and ends up infertile, or measles and has hearing problems the rest of its life etc etc. Your decision - but the consequences are very much the child's.

You make it sound as though parents exercise their rights of refusal just because they can, out of mischief or power-craziness, rather than in the carefully considered context of their responsibility to protect and advocate.

[Singh.Simran]

Originally Posted by NorthernLight

I agree that sometimes autonomy is not the be-all and end-all of a discussion, but in this particular case I think too many people are far too ready to impose a pretty drastic solution on a fairly minor problem.
Compulsory vaccinations? Check
Compulsory healthy diet? Check
Compulsory exercise classes? Check
Compulsory state-led childhood? Check
Greetings, Brave New World.

Slippery slope </> Good logical argument. This is one of the very few things AS critical thinking taught me..

It's not that minor a problem. I think if one child dies because of unfounded refusal to give immunity to another child, then that makes it a big enough problem.

Noone argues with compulsory schooling, noone argues with being hauled up before the mags for assault.

[Singh.Simran]

Originally Posted by 469er

I really don't want to patronise anyone here - seriously, I really don't want/mean to, and I hope you know I wouldn't - but I do wonder if this is partly a parents vs non-parents debate.

*chuckles*

How many times have i heard *this* old chestnut come out. The "you can't know unless you're a parent/gay/tibetan/yak"

I don't blame you, it's a normal response, but unfortunately regardless of intent it tends to be patronising. And if we're counting, i know a great many professionals who happily gave their kids MMR. All of them, actually... :S