To suggest immunisations should be a legal requirement?(596 Posts)
Look at it like this:
Wearing seatbelts it purely a safety issue. It's also a legal requirement in the UK to protect car passengers.
So why is immunisation not a legal requirement?
Likewise, drinking and driving is a criminal offence, due to the danger to the passengers and other drivers/people around you.
But deliberately choosing to let your child become a carrier of a totally preventable disease, infecting people around them (including those too young for immunisations), is totally fine? If someone doesn't vaccinate their child, then the child subsequently becomes gravely ill, why aren't the parents charged with neglect?
Makes me think of this article
I could be persuaded to agree with you if there were medical exceptions made to the rule.
...because there's never, to my knowledge, been anyone hurt by wearing a seatbelt. I am happy to stand corrected, but there's no allergic reactions, adverse reactions or danger with seat belts.
Oh yes of course. There are people who are genuinely medically unfit to be vaccinated - which is another reason why people who simply choose not to are being selfish - as it puts those who don't even have the option into further danger.
dropyoursword - as opposed to the thousands upon thousands of people who keel over after getting the measles jab?
Perhaps I should have been clearer - vaccinations for highly communicable diseases which have a presence or historical presence in the UK. For example, Measles. Mumps. Ruebella. TB, etc.
I'm not saying that everyone should have to be vaccinated against, say, yellow fever, which doesn't exist in the UK.
You do not impose a non life saving medical act on somebody.
I agree. I think it should be a legal requirement. At the very least before being allowed to attend school.
I am very pro vax and I honestly couldn't care about personal choice. People who don't vaccinate are idiots.
Immunisation is an invasive procedure. Are you really suggesting that the law is changed so that an invasive procedure can be carried out without consent?
You need to read some dystopian fiction OP.
I have severe allergies to a number of things - as in I go into shock and my heart stops. I have no idea whether my kids have this too. my sister and her kids do. I don't have jabs unless I absolutely have to and take the same approach with my kids. If made compulsory could anyone categorically assure me that there would be no bad reactions in my children. Yep - thought not. therefore you are being unreasonable.
Didn't a swine flu vaccine in the 70's kill more people than the actual swine flu itself? Seatbelts aren't known to kill more people than those they prevent dying.
I base all my decisions on what is best for my child. Not yours or anyone else's. Dd's have been vaccinated btw.
Obvious exemptions aside.
It should be a legal requirement for school/college/university enrolment
YABU. Forcing medical treatment on anyone- other than those detained under the MH act- is a road we should not be going down as a country.
Drop your sword, no one has been hurt by vaccinations either. The spurious autism link has been comprehensively disproven.
OfAFrench, a non-life saving medical act?? Really?? So no one ever died of measles? TB? Diphtheria?
Please please educate yourselves, not on bullshit internet conspiracy theories but on the actual SCIENCE.
Should add that I'm currently pissed off at the number of kids in DC school who didn't get the free nasal flu spray. Mostly because their parents have some vague notions about mercury, homeopathy or some crap article they read on facebook.
Lots of places in the US have the requirement that you get vaccinated to attend public school - and there have still been masses and masses of outbreaks in these virtually fully vaccinated populations.
1985, Texas, USA: According to an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1987, "An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced." They concluded: We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.
1985, Montana, USA: According to an article published in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled, "A persistent outbreak of measles despite appropriate prevention and control measures," an outbreak of 137 cases of measles occurred in Montana. School records indicated that 98.7% of students were appropriately vaccinated, leading the researchers to conclude: This outbreak suggests that measles transmission may persist in some settings despite appropriate implementation of the current measles elimination strategy.
1988, Colorado, USA: According to an article published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1991, "early 1988 an outbreak of 84 measles cases occurred at a college in Colorado in which over 98 percent of students had documentation of adequate measles immunity ... due to an immunization requirement in effect since 1986. They concluded: ...measles outbreaks can occur among highly vaccinated college populations.
1989, Quebec, Canada: According to an article published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health in 1991, a 1989 measles outbreak was "largely attributed to an incomplete vaccination coverage," but following an extensive review the researchers concluded Incomplete vaccination coverage is not a valid explanation for the Quebec City measles outbreak.
1991-1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: According to an article published in the journal Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, in a measles outbreak from March 1991 to April 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, 76.4% of those suspected to be infected had received measles vaccine before their first birthday.
1992, Cape Town, South Africa: According to an article published in the South African Medical Journal in 1994, "[In] August 1992 an outbreak occurred, with cases reported at many schools in children presumably immunised. Immunization coverage for measles was found to be 91%, and vaccine efficacy found to be only 79%, leading them to conclude that primary and secondary vaccine failure was a possible explanation for the outbreak.
DearTeddy You misunderstand me. I didn't even mention Autism. I am well aware that there's no proven link. But there ARE people that are allergic to components in vaccinations. There have been anaphylactic reactions which have resulted in death. I agree it's extremely rare, but it is true.
no one has been hurt by vaccinations either.
What - ever? Utter bullshit.
I vaccinated my DC. However I am pleased this is by choice. There are medical contradictions which are simple and ones which just involve greater risk. The parents should be making the choice, not a GP who is not involved in caring for that child day to day. Once we start making medical care compulsory there we remove an essential freedom....where would it end?
There is a measles outbreak at our school amongst boarders. There should imo be a rule that certain vaccinations ie. Those offered by the NHS for childhood diseases should be a prerequisite before starting school unless there is a medical reason not to be vaccinated.
I dont think such a sweeping statement as no one has been hurt by vaccinations either is strictly true as there are always chances of reaction, some of which are fatal, from immunisations
There is also a vaccine damage fund for people to claim compensation for disability caused by a vaccination.
I think YABU and my children are vaccinated
There are valid medical reasons why some children cannot be vaccinated. This is one reason that all children who can be vaccinated should be vaccinated. The herd immunity created offers protection to those with compromised immune systems or severe allergic reactions.
no one has been hurt by vaccinations either
any invasive medical procedure carries risks. Multiply them across thousands and thousands of instances, and you will find an injury, or even death.
One of the reasons why the TB vaccination was stopped being offered as a general choice was because the risks of getting TB had fallen below the risk from the jab.
That said we had our DS given all the jabs, on the basis it was better to chance a small unknown risk, against a larger known risk.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.