Vaccination

[an apple]

I was interested to find out the views of RevLefters on vaccination. As some of you might know, vaccinations are becoming quite a touchy subject, with allergic reaction (sometimes fatal) occurring after vaccinations.

It has been suggested that they contribute to mental diseases such as autism, schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis. The ingredients inside the vaccines have also been disputed, apparently having caused injury to those vaccinated on occasions. An overwhelming tide of anti-vaccination literature has also appeared, attacking the medical breakthrough.

However, the use of immunization is supposed to have eliminated smallpox and all but destroyed polio, having saved millions of lives.

So what's you're opinion? Pro or anti?
After you've voted, give your reasons for your choice.

I myself haven't been immunized since I was an infant and believe that immunization nowadays is useless as it is only for diseases which are not prevalent at all.

[Cult of Reason]

All children should be immunised (except, obviously, in the case where it is expected that there will be a harmful reaction) whether the parents like it or not. Children do not belong to the parents, so the latter have no right to deny vaccination to the former, and, importantly, immunisation is collective protection due to herd immunity.

If immunisations cause a small number of deaths, that is acceptable as they prevent many more others. Ten deaths is better than a hundred.


It has been suggested that they contribute to mental diseases such as autism, schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis

Autism: Discredited. Evidence strongly suggests that there is no link between MMR and autism.
Schizophrenia & multiple scherosis: Never heard of there being any purported link. MS is sufficiently rare that, even if there was a link, the amount of deaths prevented by the vaccine is likely to outnumber the amount of deaths caused by it.

Furthermore, a particular vaccine being linked to a particular medical condition is no reason at all for advocating the disuse of all vaccine altogether.


The ingredients inside the vaccines have also been disputed, apparently having caused injury to those vaccinated on occasions.

Weasel words.


An overwhelming tide of anti-vaccination literature has also appeared, attacking the medical breakthrough.

Who wrote this literature, and what was the basis for their attacks?



However, the use of immunization is supposed to have eliminated smallpox and all but destroyed polio, having saved millions of lives.

I have not heard of any other relevant hypotheses.


I myself haven't been immunized since I was an infant and believe that immunization nowadays is useless as it is only for diseases which are not prevalent at all.

This is a candidate for the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. Why do you think these diseases are not prevalent? The reason they are not, and remain not, prevalent is because of vaccination! Tuberculosis, long thought eliminated in the developed world, has returned somewhat because, in the UK at least, vaccination stopped. After a few deaths a few years ago, vaccinations were reintroduced and I am glad to say I received one.

[MarxSchmarx]

The emerging solution to this problem will be the use of personal genomics to identify people with a genetic propensity to be adversely affected by the immunization routine. We are already doing a better job identifying the mechanisms for why immunizations can hurt people, and because immunizations occur at such a young age there is less of an environmental basis and more a genetic component to the potential harm.

Such people at high risk should not be vaccinated, or alternative vaccines should be developed for them. We are perhaps one or two decades away from being able to tell if a person would be harmed by immunization. Until then, the status quo is on balance meritorious.


All children should be immunised (except, obviously, in the case where it is expected that there will be a harmful reaction) whether the parents like it or not. Children do not belong to the parents, so the latter have no right to deny vaccination to the former.

Well, true, but at the age when kids are immunized (at least when I was immunized, which was like 3 to 5) most children do not have the capacity to make informed decisions about whether they want to be vaccinized or not. Somebody has to make these decisions for them, and parents aren't always the best, but neither are public health officials.


If immunisations cause a small number of deaths, that is acceptable as they prevent many more others. Ten deaths is better than a hundred.

Well in the abstract this is true but when it's your own child very few people look at it this way.



I myself haven't been immunized since I was an infant and believe that immunization nowadays is useless as it is only for diseases which are not prevalent at all. This is a candidate for the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. Why do you think these diseases are not prevalent? The reason they are not, and remain not, prevalent is because of vaccination! Tuberculosis, long thought eliminated in the developed world, has returned somewhat because, in the UK at least, vaccination stopped. After a few deaths a few years ago, vaccinations were reintroduced and I am glad to say I received one.

LOL, my thoughts exactly when I read that.

[Cult of Reason]

Somebody has to make these decisions for them, and parents aren't always the best, but neither are public health officials.

I would argue that public health officials, i.e. people with medical training, would be better judges than a parent, who is likely a layperson.


Well in the abstract this is true but when it's your own child very few people look at it this way.

So we need a body that will take the collective view.

[Yazman]

I don't think it should be forced on people like that. I oppose capitalism because I think people should have more freedom, not less. I'm not cool with the idea of forced vaccinations, especially because such a program can be easily hijacked and could potentially result in more Tuskegee Experiments.

What we NEED to do is make sure we test vaccines fully before adopting them for widespread use. We should also try and develop ways to detect allergies, that way we should be able to avoid this problem entirely.

[pastradamus]

Only Idiots and religious nutbags refuse to have their children immunized. To hell with them.

[Pogue]

Who wouldn't get their kid immunised? (Except religious nutbags who deny things like blood tranfusions and condoms)

[Cult of Reason]

I don't think it should be forced on people like that. I oppose capitalism because I think people should have more freedom, not less. I'm not cool with the idea of forced vaccinations, especially because such a program can be easily hijacked and could potentially result in more Tuskegee Experiments.

Who are you referring to as being forced? The children? Infants cannot make such choices, so they must be forced. The parents? Parents do not own their children, so they should not have the freedom to "force" their children either to have a vaccination or not to have it. That should be the responsibiity of the wider community as a replacement for the responsibility that the child itself does not have.

The choice is simple: either you allow parents to decide for the children and so allow the danger of herd immunity weakening, as in the case of measles, mumps and rubella in the UK, or you have a collective body decide, guaranteeing herd immunity. Either way, the child is "forced" (if that term is at all meaningful for an entity that cannot yet make non-trivial voluntary actions); the idea of the freedom for the child to choose in this situation is meaningless.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Vaccinations should be mandatory. Already children have died because enough idiot parents have bought into anti-vaxxer propaganda and reduced herd immunity.

[Picky Bugger]

I don't think it should be forced on people like that. I oppose capitalism because I think people should have more freedom, not less. I'm not cool with the idea of forced vaccinations, especially because such a program can be easily hijacked and could potentially result in more Tuskegee Experiments.

Whilst I really agree with Noxion it is important such hijackings do not occur. It seems that hijackings could occur under the guise of forced immunisation but something on the scale of the Tuskegee Experiments would be hard to disguise again. To test the vaccines fully without the rushed profit driven approach of the current system would be ideal, if such a system was in place then mandatory immunisation could be applied.


P.S the use of the American dictionary for the spell checker is annoying... For one it is immunisation not immunization and it is sulphur not sulfur etc.

[an apple]

Only Idiots and religious nutbags refuse to have their children immunized. To hell with them.

While I respect your opinion, I think that to call people that don't agree with it 'idiots' is a bit idiotic in its own right.

Since vaccination has all but quelled these diseases except in the third world, there is so little in the chance of infection.I'm a bit pissed off about the whole thing. When I travelled to Africa with my mum, we had planned the entire trip and were set to go to Tanzania, where she was originally from. But because she read some crappy conspiracy page and believes everything she sees, she completely screwed up our trip because of the certificate for Yellow Fever immunizations.

I was willing to have my shots but because of her 'beliefs' the trip was completely changed for the worse.I see that some people reacted quite fiercely to the first post, which was what I was attempting to instigate, to see what people's opinions were.

I think its less a question of whether people should have vaccinations but more of a question of whether there should be a choice to have them or not.

I admit I failed in creating the poll and tried to change it shortly after the post, but to no avail.

So I've created a new post with a new and more relevant poll:
Should vaccinations be mandatory?

[Comrade B]

In a communist society vaccinations should be obligatory. We can not let the silly fears of a few danger future generations. I can understand that some are afraid for the safety of their children, but honestly the children are much more in danger without the vaccinations.

[JohannGE]

Whilst I really agree with Noxion it is important such hijackings do not occur. It seems that hijackings could occur under the guise of forced immunisation but something on the scale of the Tuskegee Experiments would be hard to disguise again. To test the vaccines fully without the rushed profit driven approach of the current system would be ideal, if such a system was in place then mandatory immunisation could be applied.


P.S the use of the American dictionary for the spell checker is annoying... For one it is immunisation not immunization and it is sulphur not sulfur etc.

I agree with your concerns about possible abuses of compulsory immunisation.

Regarding the spelling, isn't this an international forum?

[MarxSchmarx]

Quote:
Somebody has to make these decisions for them, and parents aren't always the best, but neither are public health officials.
I would argue that public health officials, i.e. people with medical training, would be better judges than a parent, who is likely a layperson.Yeah but medical training isn't the end all be all. Let's suppose it wasn't really young kids being vaccinated but30 somethings. These people might or might not get vaccinated for a whole host of reasons, overwhelmingly medical but some of them personal and beyond our knowledge, like they have a messed up value system or really believe they are at risk cuz they have that "hunch". Do you still believe they should be restrained and vaccinated against their will, should medical professionals be empowered that much? I see your point about the greater good, but that is a real slippery slope.




Quote:
Well in the abstract this is true but when it's your own child very few people look at it this way.
So we need a body that will take the collective view. Yeah...see the above about a slippery slope. The collective view has to be balanced by personal concerns. Otherwise it's mob rule.

See, CoR I understand where you are coming from but I'm puzzled that you don't seem to appreciate the shades of grey here. Please don't take this personally, but when you write that
Parents do not own their children but then go on to say that the collective good must be enforced by medical professionals, well, it raises a lot of similar problems, like the fact that individuals do not exist to serve the good of the state or of society necessarily.

In short, the position strikes me as an inherently essentialist position not much worse than the other side.

Now I agree on balance your views are probably correct, but there is a lot of unease about it and to be frank I think the misgivings are well founded. Viz. the human cost of vaccination, it's a lesser of two evils environment right now, and we need to recognize it as such and as a tragedy. If we brush it aside as bourgeois individualism, we destroy many of the incentives for surmounting the risks suffered by a minority through widespread vaccination.

[Cult of Reason]

Yeah but medical training isn't the end all be all. Let's suppose it wasn't really young kids being vaccinated but30 somethings. These people might or might not get vaccinated for a whole host of reasons, overwhelmingly medical but some of them personal and beyond our knowledge, like they have a messed up value system or really believe they are at risk cuz they have that "hunch". Do you still believe they should be restrained and vaccinated against their will, should medical professionals be empowered that much? I see your point about the greater good, but that is a real slippery slope.


I was addressing the question of infant vaccination only. There is little difference, for the child, between the parent or someone else deciding to have them vaccinated. There is, however, a meaningful difference when it is not a child but an adult capable of making non-trivial decisions. I do not think that, in general, adults should be vaccinated against their will.


Yeah...see the above about a slippery slope. The collective view has to be balanced by personal concerns. Otherwise it's mob rule.

See, CoR I understand where you are coming from but I'm puzzled that you don't seem to appreciate the shades of grey here. Please don't take this personally, but when you write that
Quote:
Parents do not own their children
but then go on to say that the collective good must be enforced by medical professionals, well, it raises a lot of similar problems, like the fact that individuals do not exist to serve the good of the state or of society necessarily.

In short, the position strikes me as an inherently essentialist position not much worse than the other side.

Now I agree on balance your views are probably correct, but there is a lot of unease about it and to be frank I think the misgivings are well founded. Viz. the human cost of vaccination, it's a lesser of two evils environment right now, and we need to recognize it as such and as a tragedy. If we brush it aside as bourgeois individualism, we destroy many of the incentives for surmounting the risks suffered by a minority through widespread vaccination.

Again, though perhaps I should have said so explicitly, I was only addressing infant vaccinations. When it comes to adults, education is as far as should normally be gone.

Regarding the children and collective decision-making, I would also argue that a collective body, with more brains to consider the issues, would be better at deciding what to do for children in general than individual parents who may have prejudices and no one to justify those prejudices to.

Regarding adults, I do not think we have much, or any disagreement, but the poll was specifically about child vaccination so that was my focus. With regard to that subject, I do not see there being much of a grey area: either the community decides, or individual parents. Which is likely to be more effective?

Regarding risks of vaccination, of course there should be research into minimising this, but in the meantime the interests of the majority count for more.

[TC]

The problem with vaccinations is that its rational from a public policy stand point to vaccinate people because if everyone is vaccinated there will be fewer total deaths, but its irrational from an individual stand point because, given herd immunity protection from disease and allergy and other risks from vaccination, the risk of death from vaccination is greater than the risk of death from the disease.

Given this, in a scenario where there were no incentives to vaccinate (no penalties or tax credits) I would always advise an individual child not to be vaccinated.* However, if i was the paramount leader of a state, I'd advise the governing body to pass legislation to offer tax incentives sufficient to motivate a sufficient number of people to get vaccinated or similar incentive structure to produce the same results without coercion (i.e. children who opt for vaccination receive People's Candy and Toy Credits in sufficient numbers to entice enough children to opt in to produce herd immunity)




*(were I a parent, I'd never force my hypothetical child to do anything; needless to say failing to treat your child as your property makes you an unfit parent in the eyes of the capitalist state, and not wanting to enslave someone, i wont be a parent...) Similarly, were I able to influence state apparatus sufficiently to achieve this sort of policy result, I would find the use of force to obtain compliance more undesirable than non-compliance. I'd rather people be free and at risk then safe and enslaved.

[Mujer Libre]

As some of you might know, vaccinations are becoming quite a touchy subject, with allergic reaction (sometimes fatal) occurring after vaccinations.Yawn. These are so, so rare. For people to be concerned enough about them to not be immunised is just ridiculously out of proportion.

Also, since most of these deaths would be from anaphylaxis- people who are immunised are told to remain under observation for 15mins so that if they do develop an allergic reaction they can be given a shot of adrenaline and make a full recovery.

The vast majority of other adverse reactions are minor, local reactions. A sore arm and slight fever? Oh noes!


It has been suggested that they contribute to mental diseases such as autism, schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis. Um, no, that's been quite thoroughly disproven- especially the hysterical autism story.


The ingredients inside the vaccines have also been disputed, apparently having caused injury to those vaccinated on occasions.I'm not sure what ingredients you're talking about? I know there was a mercury-containing compound- but despite what anti-immunisation folks try to tell us, that's no longer used.


An overwhelming tide of anti-vaccination literature has also appeared, attacking the medical breakthrough.So? There's loads of loony conspiracy literature out there.


However, the use of immunization is supposed to have eliminated smallpox and all but destroyed polio, having saved millions of lives.Yes. Add Haemophilus Influenzae type B to that list- a bacterium that can kill young children through sepsis or meningitis.

Or rotavirus, a major cause of diarrhoeal illness in kids, and death in poor countries. The vaccine is not available in most of the world at the moment- and it would save thousands of lives.


I myself haven't been immunized since I was an infant and believe that immunization nowadays is useless as it is only for diseases which are not prevalent at all.The reason they're not prevalent anymore (Although I think you are actually misinformed there. For example, rotavirus and pertussis are still very, very common. Pertussis still kills babies, and guess what, they get it from unvaccinated adults.) is because of herd immunity- which other people have outlined. Even if a case is brought in from the outside (because we clearly vaccinate against diseases that are still around in the world- but not necessarily where we may live) enough people are immune to ensure that it does not spread and become an epidemic.

Also, many anti-immunisation people like to say that these are minor childhood illnesses, but that's frequently not true. E.g. pertussis that is a minor illness in adults, but a major, debilitating illness in babies.

I just think that many people are incredibly misinformed about vaccination. The Myths and Realities (http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/uci-myths-guideprov) handbook is quite helpful information about many of the myths out there.

Edit: I'm studying at a children's hospital at the moment, so am feeling quite passionate about the issue- especially as we do see kids seriously ill with vaccine preventable diseases. I had my pertussis jab (DTP actually), not because pertussis would make me ill, but because if I contracted it and came into contact with young infants, I could make them seriously ill.

It just makes sense!

[TC]

Yawn. These are so, so rare.

Sure, they're rare. Know whats rarer than an adverse reaction to a smallpox vaccination though? Contracting smallpox.

The same holds true of some other diseases while it doesn't for others.


For people to be concerned enough about them to not be immunised is just ridiculously out of proportion.Its out of proportion for some diseases and for some its not. You can't assert that its universally out of proportion without analyzing what those proportions actually are in each case.


Also, since most of these deaths would be from anaphylaxis- people who are immunised are told to remain under observation for 15mins so that if they do develop an allergic reaction they can be given a shot of adrenaline and make a full recovery.and yet...their lives would have been put in greater jeaprody from the vaccination than from the disease that its supposed to prevent.




The vast majority of other adverse reactions are minor, local reactions. A sore arm and slight fever? Oh noes!The arrogant dismissal of patient pain as a consideration is one of the biggest problems with the medical profession.

One could just as persuasively assert 'the obscure risk of death from an illness that the likelihood of contracting, let alone being exposed to, is negligible? Oh noes!'

Either way, the optimal decision when it comes to which risks to take is an issue of judgment, of policy values, of preference balancing...they're not empirically resolvable questions.


Um, no, that's been quite thoroughly disproven- especially the hysterical autism story.These scientifically inaccurate claims about vaccinations should also not be used as red herrings to dismiss concerns about legitimate risks (allergic reaction) and negative effects (pain, cost, lost time) from vaccinations that need to be balanced against the benefits (the mitigation of other risks, some of which are themselves extremely rare).


The reason they're not prevalent anymore... is because of herd immunity- which other people have outlined...Even if a case is brought in from the outside (because we clearly vaccinate against diseases that are still around in the world- but not necessarily where we may live) enough people are immune to ensure that it does not spread and become an epidemic.But herd immunity reduces the relative benefit of a vaccine to any given individual deciding whether or not they should get it. Thats an argument against vaccinating yourself or encouraging other individuals you care about to get vaccinated. Obviously this wouldn't work if everyone maximized their own self interest this way (which is why it would be totally appropriate to provide incentives to rebalance the cost-benefit equation to make vaccination make sense for enough people to preserve herd immunity) but it doesn't change the fact that it degrades the advantages of vaccination for any given person.



Edit: I'm studying at a children's hospital at the moment, so am feeling quite passionate about the issue- especially as we do see kids seriously ill with vaccine preventable diseases. I had my pertussis jab (DTP actually), not because pertussis would make me ill, but because if I contracted it and came into contact with young infants, I could make them seriously ill.You are and should be free to structure your priorities as you see fit, and I would certainly hope that people who are at disproportional risk of transmitting illnesses to vulnerable populations ensure that they don't (it might be reasonable say to mandate that pediatrians get childhood vaccinations, that prostitutes get std/sti vaccinations, as a condition of their licenses etc) but just asserting your priorities and motives doesn't make them inherently the only acceptable ones to have.

And anyways, with regard to this argument (as with the argument that we should not only benefit from but contribute to herd immunity) it might be reasonable to argue that theres a social obligation to avoid harming others when the sacrifice/risk-assumed in doing so is de minimis, but when the potential for harm is also de minimis then it may be a tougher argument ot make.


It just makes sense!Thats not an argument, its just an empty claim.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

In a good society I would but I have governmentphobia.So I wouldn't and I don't get any form of vaccines

[Mujer Libre]

Sure, they're rare. Know whats rarer than an adverse reaction to a smallpox vaccination though? Contracting smallpox.
Um... Nobody gets the smallpox vaccine anymore. When a disease has been reliably eradicated, vaccination ceases.



Its out of proportion for some diseases and for some its not. You can't assert that its universally out of proportion without analyzing what those proportions actually are in each case.
You realise that medications are rigorously tested before being used (admittdly, it's not foolproof, but see the next part of the sentence)- and that these testing regulations are even more stringent for a medication that is going to be used on kids, and in a publicly funded program.

These proportions HAVE been analysed, by people more w=qualified than both of us. Recently, one of the rotavirus vaccines has been taken off the market because it was thought to possible, maybe be associated with an increased risk of intussusception (a gut problem). Subsequent data showed that the risk was the same as the background, but the vaccine is still of the market- just to be doubly sure.





and yet...their lives would have been put in greater jeaprody from the vaccination than from the disease that its supposed to prevent.
Only there's no way of predicting who will develop an anaphylactic reaction, and the risk to the population as a whole by reducing immunisation rates would skyrocket.

So I don't see how that's a valid argument at all? Sure, if a kid has had an anaphylaxis in the past they shouldn't receive that particular shot again. That's common sense. But using that as a "criticism" of vaccination is unfounded. Peanut butter causes far more anaphylaxis than vaccinations- I don't see people lining up on the anti peanut-butter bandwagon.





The arrogant dismissal of patient pain as a consideration is one of the biggest problems with the medical profession.
Oh good lord- that was me being facetious. I'd never, ever say that to a patient in those tones. Last time I checked we were on RL, not the hospital, and I was addressing the arguments of posters, not parents.


One could just as persuasively assert 'the obscure risk of death from an illness that the likelihood of contracting, let alone being exposed to, is negligible? Oh noes!'
Look up the statistics about deaths and disability caused by most of the diseases on the vaccination schedule and then try to say this. Sorry, you just are not as informed on this issue as I am. FFS, I work in this area. Check out the booklet I posted, or look up some of the diseases I mentioned. They are neither rare nor trivial.




These scientifically inaccurate claims about vaccinations should also not be used as red herrings to dismiss concerns about legitimate risks (allergic reaction) and negative effects (pain, cost, lost time) from vaccinations that need to be balanced against the benefits (the mitigation of other risks, some of which are themselves extremely rare).
I wasn;t using them as a red herring (it's called a strawman on your part)- I was, in fact, addressing an issue raised by the OP.


but herd immunity reduces the relative benefit of a vaccine to any given individual deciding whether or not they should get it. Thats an argument against vaccinating yourself or encouraging other individuals you care about to get vaccinated. Obviously this wouldn't work if everyone maximized their own self interest this way (which is why it would be totally appropriate to provide incentives to rebalance the cost-benefit equation to make vaccination make sense for enough people to preserve herd immunity) but it doesn't change the fact that it degrades the advantages of vaccination for any given person.
Wel, if you want to take that form of reasoning, sure. But most people just aren't that self-interested and are able to understand that the benefits to all are benefits to them as well. If herd immunity declined sufficiently they would be at increased risk of contracting the disease.

Anyway, most of the diseases on the schedule (HIB, Hep B, rotavirus, pneuococcus, pertussis) are actually common in the general population (did you miss that part of my previous post, or choose to ignore it?) and therefore the herd immunity doesn't cut it, since if you're not immunised you are actually at significantly increased risk of contracting them, as compared with the usually relatively minor side effects. Not to mention that they are all free here.

[Picky Bugger]

Regarding the spelling, isn't this an international forum?

Indeed it is but the American dictionary is just plain awful. Did you know the word winningest actually exists, I mean really that's not a word :p

[MarxSchmarx]

I feel bad posting this now that the discussion has moved on somewhat, but CoR raised an interesting point that will benefit from continuing this.

We are making progress but there is still some ambiguity in my mind.


Again, though perhaps I should have said so explicitly, I was only addressing infant vaccinations. When it comes to adults, education is as far as should normally be gone.

Regarding the children and collective decision-making, I would also argue that a collective body, with more brains to consider the issues, would be better at deciding what to do for children in general than individual parents who may have prejudices and no one to justify those prejudices to.

Regarding adults, I do not think we have much, or any disagreement, but the poll was specifically about child vaccination so that was my focus. With regard to that subject, I do not see there being much of a grey area: either the community decides, or individual parents. Which is likely to be more effective?

Regarding risks of vaccination, of course there should be research into minimising this, but in the meantime the interests of the majority count for more.

You raise a valid point that infant vaccinations are qualitatively different than adult vaccinations.

But I still fall off the wagon viz. the different values placed. See, suppose an adult in their 30s felt that for all the collective benefit, they felt their lives were so valuable that they didn't want to risk vaccination. This derives from a love of self, the collective opinion be damned.

Similarly, I think parents very often have a deep love for their own children, the collective opinion be damned. I still think if we are willing to acknowledge the former as a legitimate basis for rejecting vaccination, then we have to acknowledge the latter as well.

And this is why I think that for all the real differences you point out between infant and adult vaccinations, there is a common rationale as to why, if we permit adults to eschew vaccination, we should also allow parents to eschew vaccination.

Now, if you take the view that an adult's personal values be damned, they should be vaccinated possibly against their will, you have an internally consistent argument. But seeing as many of the arguments against forced vaccinations for adults, I still am not convinced that they don't equally apply to parents.

Now you are correct that adults can be educated to accept vaccination, but so can parents. So why do we presume parents will be any more irrational in this regard?

Indeed, I think you are on to something viz. the very real distinction between infants and adults. But where I lose track is that presumably adult parents should behave like adults when it comes to vaccination, and to say they are any different would seem to bely this claim.

[Cult of Reason]

Similarly, I think parents very often have a deep love for their own children, the collective opinion be damned. I still think if we are willing to acknowledge the former as a legitimate basis for rejecting vaccination, then we have to acknowledge the latter as well.

What about adoptive parents who feel a deep love for the children? What about the extended family? What about family friends, or indeed any individual that has a love for the children? Why are parents special? This situation is only similar to the situation of an adult denying vaccination for theirself if the child is seen as a part of them in some way, or property of them.

What should be done is what is best for the children, and what is generally the best is for them all to be vaccinated.* I do not see why the parents have to be considered, as they are separate individuals. I do not think vaccination policy should pay heed to the relationships between individuals.

*In the case of adults, though, to use hyperbole, they have the right to suicide, whether intentional or not. Parents do not have the right to cause harm to their children, whether intentional or not, so such harm should be prevented whenever practicable.


Now, if you take the view that an adult's personal values be damned, they should be vaccinated possibly against their will,

As an aside, if we were in the middle of a deadly flu pandemic and a vaccine had just become available, I think the majority should make sure everyone, of every age, is vaccinated as collective self-defence. But then, that is not a normal situation.


So why do we presume parents will be any more irrational in this regard?

The issue is that they are no longer deciding for themselves, but for other (helpless) individuals, who should not be allowed to be victims of such irrationality.

[MarxSchmarx]

Why are parents special?

Well I would include adoptive parents, sure. But I think parents are special b/c empirically it is very rare to find parents that don't care deeply about their kids, whereas the other kin tend to care less and less.


This situation is only similar to the situation of an adult denying vaccination for theirself if the child is seen as a part of them in some way, or property of them.

In some sense I think this is true, though. Parents project their own self-concern onto their children in a powerful way. Of course parents aren't the end all be all of people who have a strong attachment to infants, but until proven otherwise they are by far and away the most likely to have that attachment. And of course adoptive parents would fit this bill as well.

More generally, though, it's highly plausible that children would inherit the values of their parents. If the values of the parents are such that "vaccinations will kill you", it's plausible to believe the child will grow up to refuse vaccination even as an adult. So in some respects the (adult or infant) child is an extension of the parents.



What should be done is what is best for the children, and what is generally the best is for them all to be vaccinated.* I do not see why the parents have to be considered, as they are separate individuals. I do not think vaccination policy should pay heed to the relationships between individuals.

*In the case of adults, though, to use hyperbole, they have the right to suicide, whether intentional or not. Parents do not have the right to cause harm to their children, whether intentional or not, so such harm should be prevented whenever practicable...Why are parents special? This situation is only similar to the situation of an adult denying vaccination for theirself if the child is seen as a part of them in some way, or property of them.

Good points both. I now see more clearly where you are coming from. I have qualms about equating a decision not to be vaccinated out of fear with suicide, and the decision isn't necessarily irrational (if you place an infinite value on your life, then taking any risk isn't irrational but arational), but you raise a good analogy.

[JohannGE]

Indeed it is but the American dictionary is just plain awful. Did you know the word winningest actually exists, I mean really that's not a word :p

Your right, sorry about that, I came over all PC gone mad for a moment there.

I sometimes feel resistance is futile though. What the hell is the definition anyway and is there a corresponding "loseingest?

:)

btw... neither are in the US based IESpell linked at top right.

[Picky Bugger]

I know how you feel...

I've only ever heard it used for Ice Hockey as in "Martin Brodeur Winningest Goaltender in NHL history with 552 wins"

The actual definition is ADJECTIVE: Informal More successful or winning more often than any others of its kind: “It was one of America's winningest days for women”.

I feel we may be derailing this thread somewhat so I will leave this here. :)

[pastradamus]

While I respect your opinion, I think that to call people that don't agree with it 'idiots' is a bit idiotic in its own right.

Since vaccination has all but quelled these diseases except in the third world, there is so little in the chance of infection.I'm a bit pissed off about the whole thing. When I travelled to Africa with my mum, we had planned the entire trip and were set to go to Tanzania, where she was originally from. But because she read some crappy conspiracy page and believes everything she sees, she completely screwed up our trip because of the certificate for Yellow Fever immunizations.

I was willing to have my shots but because of her 'beliefs' the trip was completely changed for the worse.I see that some people reacted quite fiercely to the first post, which was what I was attempting to instigate, to see what people's opinions were.

I think its less a question of whether people should have vaccinations but more of a question of whether there should be a choice to have them or not.

I admit I failed in creating the poll and tried to change it shortly after the post, but to no avail.

So I've created a new post with a new and more relevant poll:
Should vaccinations be mandatory?

Yes, I believe Vaccinations should be mandatory. Over here in Ireland we dont have mandatory vaccinations and I think its crime. We cant let the decision of parents affect the children. Also, we cant allow for parents and other adults go without vaccinations as its for the benefit for their health and also as Not taking a vaccination can help spread disease as well as having a needless impact on the Health service, moreover its akin to allowing someone with severe depression to commit suicide rather then trying to correct a mental illness - This might sound like a drastic comparrison but if enough people refuse to take vaccinations we could be struck with huge outbrakes of perfectably preventable disease. In my home city of Cork they have stopped giving out TB vaccinations (to save funds) and several Children and Women have contracted the disease and some actually died and I have been a huge supporter of bringing back the vaccine. Though Ironically here in Ireland if a Jehovah Witness refuses to allow their child have a blood transfusion the state will overule the decision which I think is fantastic and humanitarian.

I have read a wealth of Conspiracies with relation to the vaccination. This goes from everything to "mind control" to "risk of death" claims. Which are obviously completely unfounded.

[Coggeh]

Yes, I believe Vaccinations should be mandatory. Over here in Ireland we dont have mandatory vaccinations and I think its crime.
Got an MMR one just today . Turns out half the people in our school didn't get one .For various reasons , they said they got it before but failed to realise that you need two MMR vaccinations and others , just don't like needles .

It should be mandatory and any parent who would force their child to not be immunized against such a disease deserves a jail sentence for neglect IMO.

[pastradamus]

Got an MMR one just today . Turns out half the people in our school didn't get one .For various reasons , they said they got it before but failed to realise that you need two MMR vaccinations and others , just don't like needles .

It should be mandatory and any parent who would force their child to not be immunized against such a disease deserves a jail sentence for neglect IMO.

Yeah, Treating children like their some kind of property is a crime. This whole "I know whats best for my child" shite has gone too far. Recently I read of a woman whom refused to allow her child drink tap water and instead gave the toddler Volvic mineral water. There is two reasons im against this:

1: Water should not be a consumer product. Its a basic human need. Its sale should be boycotted IMO (ever spell evian backwards hmmmm?)

2: If the child eventually drinks tap water its possible he/she will have no immune system against its mineral content and will get diarrhea or worse.

[Bitter Ashes]

I guess I come from a bit of a unique background where the breadwinner in our household was a microbiologist who was working with all sorts of nasties, including known biologicial weapons.

It was policy that not only was he immunised against all the things he worked with, but also his immediate family. The theory behind it was that if it ever turned out that there was an outbreak we were unable to significantly stall the spread of any desieses that he may have brought home by not bieng carriers for it.

I'm not sure if the vacinations are still in date, I'd imagine they're not, but it's something that I grew up with and I dont regret it in the slightest. Looking back on it too, I can definatly see the logic in immunisations as not only benefitial to those who recieve them, but also the community as a whole, due to the reduction in carriers. Still didnt stop me getting chickenpox and mumps though. :glare:

[Comrade Anarchist]

yes unless allergies are involved. i think that those connections to autism and etc are made up.

sorry the way i said it before made it seem like i believed the connections.

[pastradamus]

yes unless allergies are involved. i dont really think that those connections to autism and etc are really kinda made up.

There is an overwhelming lack of proof on the autism issue.

[Eva]

Preventive medicine is your friend. If anything, it should be free and mandatory.

If hypothetically speaking, preservatives used in vaccines are in fact harmful- this has not been conclusively proven, as stated by may posters on this thread- it is a pharmaceutical problem. As you know, insurance and pharmaceuticals companies pretty much run the health care industry. Hence, this would be a problem associated with capitalist medicine, not with immunizations.

Yes, I would have my child immunized. Considering the politics of the medical industry, my child would be better off having resistance against several life-threatening conditions than having to pay who-knows-how-much-money for treatment, even more so if our family is not insured.

[Eva]

All known teratogens (agents that cause birth defects) related to the risk of autism appear to act during the first eight weeks from conception, and though this does not exclude the possibility that autism can be initiated or affected later, there is strong evidence that autism arises very early in development. Additionally, we know for a fact that a vaccine cannot single-handedly cause the instantaneous neurological deconditioning of a child.

[Coggeh]

Similarly, were I able to influence state apparatus sufficiently to achieve this sort of policy result, I would find the use of force to obtain compliance more undesirable than non-compliance. I'd rather people be free and at risk then safe and enslaved.
Whats this talk of slavery ? its just a vaccination.Of course theirs risks but not at the level that the sensationalist mass media are playing it out to be. After the autism scare for example many children because of their ignorant parents were not vaccinated and now their is a resurgence of measles in the UK and Ireland.


*(were I a parent, I'd never force my hypothetical child to do anything; needless to say failing to treat your child as your property makes you an unfit parent in the eyes of the capitalist state, and not wanting to enslave someone, i wont be a parent...)
Thats what a parent is supposed to do . You would leave your child at risk because you think your treating him/her like property ? A parent is their to make the decisions when a child can't (such as vaccination) how do you expect a 5 year old to make an informed understanding decision about as issue such as this . I'm sorry but I'd consider such a thing from a parent who's child may have contracted the disease as neglect and should be brought up for it .In my opinion that is.

[pastradamus]

The problem with vaccinations is that its rational from a public policy stand point to vaccinate people because if everyone is vaccinated there will be fewer total deaths, but its irrational from an individual stand point because, given herd immunity protection from disease and allergy and other risks from vaccination, the risk of death from vaccination is greater than the risk of death from the disease.

How so? Before we had the MMR vaccine we had numerous deaths from preventable diseases. The injection itself being administered in the care of a trained doctor or Nurse decreases risk and in Ireland we keep health surveillence of Injected children.


Given this, in a scenario where there were no incentives to vaccinate (no penalties or tax credits) I would always advise an individual child not to be vaccinated.* However, if i was the paramount leader of a state, I'd advise the governing body to pass legislation to offer tax incentives sufficient to motivate a sufficient number of people to get vaccinated or similar incentive structure to produce the same results without coercion (i.e. children who opt for vaccination receive People's Candy and Toy Credits in sufficient numbers to entice enough children to opt in to produce herd immunity)

This got me thinking. I think where there is a care of the MMR vaccine or any other vaccine for that matter producing a bad reaction than I believe the Parents should be compensated for this financially or in some other way.



*(were I a parent, I'd never force my hypothetical child to do anything; needless to say failing to treat your child as your property makes you an unfit parent in the eyes of the capitalist state, and not wanting to enslave someone, i wont be a parent...) Similarly, were I able to influence state apparatus sufficiently to achieve this sort of policy result, I would find the use of force to obtain compliance more undesirable than non-compliance. I'd rather people be free and at risk then safe and enslaved.

I disagree. If I were a parent I would wish my child to be safe from Infection of dangerous diseases. I think your going the wrong way when you think of a child as being property - the parent has a duty of care to the child and this should be honored as a human right. Children are a special group of people who I believe should be thought to think for themselves but whom I think should be provided all the nessecary medicinal attention to prevent dangerous early childhood diseases and should be vaccinated on this basis.

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

The Jews and Gays who also blew up the World Trade Center are trying to poison your children with vaccinations! They're also trying to introduce Communism with their carbon tax, using that "global-warming" myth to perpetuate their murder and taxation! If only Ron Paul were president... America would show 'em! :D

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I don't think individual gain over community gain is necessarily a rational decision. Rational egoism presumes no legitimate value is attached to the community. Most people have a genuine care for others that's rooted in their psychological nature. Denying our inclinations toward empathy requires a rational justification for these emotions being undesirable. Given that they promote a more cooperative society, this is not the case.

Individuals decide if the individual and community gain of a legislation justifies a restriction in law or is sufficient to provide personal motivation. If given the opportunity to do so without being caught, I doubt most people would steal from the homeless. Most people don't steal from anyone. The only noticeable theft is downloading, and we all know they're grossly overpaid. People have communist sympathies inherent in their nature.