To not get this vaccination logic?

[choccywoccywoowah]

I am on a group on Facebook and there was a thread discussing the flu vax for children. One mum said she wanted her children to have it but it was only available free to her younger child and not her 6 yr old. So she decided that it would be unfair to protect one and not the other so neither of them could have it.

I would rather this didn't become a pro/anti thread.

Surely by giving it one, would be protecting the other aswell? Like children who cant ne vaccinated for health reasons rely on others to vaccinate their children? Or am I missing the point?

Maybe there is some scientific logic to her choice but personally I can't see it

I don't get that either. Personally in that situation I'd pay for the older one (but round here we get a flu vaccine for year 1&2 at school for free) and be grateful that one of them was free.

From the NHS Children's flu vaccine FAQs:

The children’s flu vaccination programme is being rolled out in stages. It is routinely offered this year (2015/16) to all children aged two, three and four years old, plus children in school years one and two.

So a six year old should get it, because they'd be in year 1 or 2?

X post with MsMermaid

I guess because she thinks she is favouring one child over the other? If the one who hadn't had the flu vax got sick then she'd have to live with the guilt?? But then surely it's better to have one sick child rather than two??

Some people have warped idea of 'fair'.

I remember many discussions with my mother when some conjoined twins were being separated.

Basically there were not enough organs to share them out so the decision was made that the stronger twin would receive the most and probably live, the weaker one would get less and probably would not live.

I could not get the idea accross to my mother that it was better for one twin to live and not 'share out' the organs evenly and have them both die.