Aibu to think MN should delete anti-vax threads?

[FigandVanilla]

The anti-vax movement is becoming a public health issue, and children’s lives are being endangered as a result. This obviously doesn’t only affect the children of anti-vaxxers, but also children who rely on herd immunity to protect them.

There is no scientific basis of any kind to support the anti-vax movement. It is an area where the scientific and medical community are in total agreement - vaccines save lives.

But there are not infrequent threads on Mumsnet where anti-vax sentiment spreads. And it’s always heartening to see the overwhelming push back against this from MNers. But I fear that there will inevitably still be parents who are swayed by these posts.

I am all for debate, but this isn’t a debatable issue. It’s an issue where one side is selling lies and misinformation. Facts are facts, and the truth is anti-vax threads exist because of a denial of the facts.

Should these threads be allowed? Or does MN have some kind of moral duty to children that means they ought to refuse to be a platform for a movement which is based on lies and which is actively harmful to children?

In fact, why do you even need to make a case against an individual unless they're trying to deny you your right to choose vaccines for yourself and your family?

Because anti-vaxxers don’t just endanger their own kids. They endanger people who have valid medical reasons for not being able to have vaccines and who rely on herd immunity. It’s hard to to be personally invested in something like that when you know people whose lives are endangered by anti-vaxxers.

All opinions are allowed. Forcing things off is wrong, I don't agree with alot of people's opinions on here but I agree with their right to talk and debate them.

The only exception to this, is extreme views like all black people should be shot. Ie someone with extreme views should be deleted and blocked. All the rest should be allowed to be aired and debated.

How does causing a breach of the peace, quite probably slandering/defaming an individual and possibly inciting violence, or at least public unrest in any way compare with calmly discussing their opinions of, and personal choices relating to, a non-human principle which potentially affects us all?

It's quite simple, either free speech is absolute, in which case, legal concepts like slander, defamation, incitement of violence, perjury and a myriad of other crimes wouldn't exist, or free speech is not absolute, and instead it must be balanced against the potential harm it can cause.

In the latter case, i.e. in reality, it's perfectly valid to make the case that anti-vax bullshit is one of the more harmful types of speech.

YABU we still have free speech and I don't care who does and who doesn't vaccinate their kids, it's up to the parents what they do, I'm sure most parents are capable of gaining the facts and making their own decisions.
Mine were all done on time, except for one who had to wait until starting school on doctors orders.
I didn't go around complaining about other parents who had decided not to vaccinate, as it was my child I made sure she came first and stayed at home with her, rather than put her in danger at a nursery.
If your child can't be immunised it's another part of parenting you have to cope with.

Answer OP, Don't rely on herd mentality, simples.

YABU we still have free speech

Which law (or case) obligates mumsnet to provide a platform of discussion for anti-vaxxers?

There was a thread recently about thehealing/wellbeing properties of crystals.

I don't think this belief makes any sense whatsoever and, AFAIA, science backs me up in believing that any perceived benefits are as a result of the placebo effect at best.

However, the thread largely progressed in a respectful way, with some actively agreeing, some actively disagreeing and some on the fence.

Do I think it's a foolish thing to believe? Yes, very. Do I abuse those who do believe it and call them all sorts of offensive names for their belief? No, absolutely not.

It has nothing to do with me and it isn't hurting or affecting me in any way. They aren't trying to force me to abandon traditional medical treatment in favour of 'harnessing the power of crystals'.

It's that freedom of speech/belief thing again that so many people seem to have objections to.

Just bear in mind that, although you may share the majority opinion/official line on most things, there could come a time for any of us where we find we deviate. It might be something that we feel very strongly about, but once we've all agreed that we always shut down any dissenters from the party line, we'll just have to accept that we aren't allowed our own beliefs any more - or at least never to mention to anybody that we disagree.

Galileo might have had something to say about that - not that he was freely allowed to, of course....

How do we decide what an "anti-vaxx" thread is? I've seen threads where the OP has asked a question about vaccine safety as they are concerned about vaccinating their child. Sooner rather than later someone responds with "nice try OP, you are clearly an anti-vaxxer" because the OP has dared to simply ask a question.

The thread then descends into chaos with emotive posts about Roald Dahl's child dying from measles, the poster who has the uncle deformed from Polio etc.

On MN you are not allowed to ask a question about vaccinations, express fear or concerns without being shot down in flames.

I 100% agree with vaccinations btw. I just think the reaction on MN to any debate about it is bizarre to say the least.

It has nothing to do with me and it isn't hurting or affecting me in any way.

Unlike refusing to vaccinate kids, which does hurt and affect other people.

I was pro-vaccine and an anti-vaccine friend made me question my views. The mumsnet threads I read helped me re-confirm my original view! So, apart from the free speech thing..., I do not think they should be deleted.

I can’t imagine being an anxious new mum and googling ‘mumsnet should I vaccinate’ and coming up with nothing.

Which law (or case) obligates mumsnet to provide a platform of discussion for anti-vaxxers?

Feel free to start your own website which invites discussion and then actively delete/ban any opinions or posters who disagree with you. It's perfectly legal and nobody will stop you - a lot of people already do just this.

It's got to better than trying to hijack a huge existing international discussion forum and start dictating what they are or are not allowed to host, which does seem a little arrogant, to say the least.

I can’t imagine being an anxious new mum and googling ‘mumsnet should I vaccinate’ and coming up with nothing.

www.mumsnet.com/babies/vaccinations

Being called arrogant by the "I know better than the doctors brigade"

Alexa, what is irony?

It's got to better than trying to hijack a huge existing international discussion forum and start dictating what they are or are not allowed to host, which does seem a little arrogant, to say the least.

Could you just clarify, are you suggesting that my thread saying ‘let’s have a discussion about whether Mumsnet should do this thing’ is me ‘hijacking’ a forum and dictating what people can and can’t do?

It has nothing to do with me and it isn't hurting or affecting me in any way.

Unlike refusing to vaccinate kids, which does hurt and affect other people.

Maybe, in which case, why don't people campaign to make vaccination legally compulsory rather than just hurling insults at those who have objections or misgivings.

Parents are given the right to bring their children up and make many decisions for them in many ways that others will disagree with, whether within a particular religion, feeding them a wholly vegan diet, hothousing them educationally, never reading with them, never reasonably disciplining them or indeed shouting at them for the tiniest reason.

One person may criticise another for not vaccinating their child whereas another will criticise another for having an abortion and depriving their child of any life at all. Some would say that divorcing if you have children is a terrible thing to do whereas others will condemn people for staying in any kind of abusive relationship and exposing their children to it.

Until we begin taking children from parents at birth and putting them straight into state-approved institutions, we accept that different decisions will be made. Where it crosses the line into illegal, then we step in.

Maybe, in which case, why don't people campaign to make vaccination legally compulsory rather than just hurling insults at those who have objections or misgivings.

I don’t think I have hurled insults at anyone but let me know if otherwise.

Parents are given the right to bring their children up and make many decisions for them in many ways that others will disagree with, whether within a particular religion, feeding them a wholly vegan diet, hothousing them educationally, never reading with them, never reasonably disciplining them or indeed shouting at them for the tiniest reason.

None of the things you have listed lead to a hugely increased risk of the child in question dying. They are therefore not remotely comparable.

One person may criticise another for not vaccinating their child whereas another will criticise another for having an abortion and depriving their child of any life at all. Some would say that divorcing if you have children is a terrible thing to do whereas others will condemn people for staying in any kind of abusive relationship and exposing their children to it.

Another person’s decision to have an abortion does not risk the lives of immunocompromised children and adults. Divorcing doesn’t make it more likely your child will die of a preventable disease. People should be assisted in leaving abusive relationships which endanger their children, and it is in fact a crime to not protect your children from abuse by other people. What is the relevance of these examples?

Until we begin taking children from parents at birth and putting them straight into state-approved institutions, we accept that different decisions will be made. Where it crosses the line into illegal, then we step in.

There is a big wide space between raising children in state-run institutions and telling parents that they are wrong to risk their kids’ lives on the basis of lies and misinformation. This type of reasoning is called a straw-man argument and is a way of deflecting attention from the real debate.

It's got to better than trying to hijack a huge existing international discussion forum and start dictating what they are or are not allowed to host, which does seem a little arrogant, to say the least.

Could you just clarify, are you suggesting that my thread saying ‘let’s have a discussion about whether Mumsnet should do this thing’ is me ‘hijacking’ a forum and dictating what people can and can’t do?

My comment was aimed at this later post:
Which law (or case) obligates mumsnet to provide a platform of discussion for anti-vaxxers?

Your OP questioning the position that MN should hold on the topic was a fair one, although I obviously disagree with you on a number of points.

My use of the word 'hijack' was when the other poster was apparently taking the position that, because MN is not legally obligated to host certain threads, they should therefore not be allowed to host threads that this poster or any others have any objections to. That's a very slippery slope to go down.

Nevertheless, you state that:
I am all for debate, but this isn’t a debatable issue. It’s an issue where one side is selling lies and misinformation. Facts are facts, and the truth is anti-vax threads exist because of a denial of the facts.

A minority of people have had very adverse reactions to vaccines. I'm not saying that current vaccine science isn't conclusively proven to be beneficial to the vast majority of people, but people should still have a right to bodily autonomy and to be allowed to share opinions and beliefs, unless they are actively inciting harm to others.

I'm not saying that YOU have, but we've had endless threads about Brexit where some remainers have been slapping down leavers for denying the 'undeniable proven facts' about what hasn't actually even happened yet.

However impassioned and convinced one is that their belief is the right one, doesn't mean that others should not be allowed to respectfully discuss it.

A minority of people have had very adverse reactions to vaccines. I'm not saying that current vaccine science isn't conclusively proven to be beneficial to the vast majority of people, but people should still have a right to bodily autonomy and to be allowed to share opinions and beliefs, unless they are actively inciting harm to others.

I’ve never disputed that. What is not factually supportable is a person saying that, to the average person, the risk of an adverse reaction to a vaccine is greater than the risk of preventable diseases to the unvaccinated. It simply isn’t true to assert this. So unless you have medical history which would suggest vaccines are not safe for you (in which case you shouldn’t get them, and will rely on herd immunity), it is simply not true to say that the risk of vaccines is equal to or greater than the risk of preventable diseases.

However impassioned and convinced one is that their belief is the right one, doesn't mean that others should not be allowed to respectfully discuss it.

The efficacy of vaccines isn’t a belief, it’s a fact. People can debate whether or not they want to vaccinate their kids, and that’s fine. But there can be no debate about whether vaccines work and whether they have saved millions of lives, because we know these things to be factually true.

I don’t think I have hurled insults at anyone but let me know if otherwise.

Sorry, that wasn't levelled at you personally, but it's par for the course among so many MNers these days - in this and countless other threads.

None of the things you have listed lead to a hugely increased risk of the child in question dying. They are therefore not remotely comparable.

In which case, campaign for legally compulsory vaccination of children.

Another person’s decision to have an abortion does not risk the lives of immunocompromised children and adults.

Many pro-lifers would say that abortion categorically does risk the life of children. Of course, many others disagree with this.

People should be assisted in leaving abusive relationships which endanger their children, and it is in fact a crime to not protect your children from abuse by other people.

Indeed they should be assisted, but should they be legally forced to? What if they don't want to? We've had previous threads where some people put up with the abuse because they don't want the perceived 'shame' of divorce or even because they don't want to to give up financial security. The children may never be the (active) targets of the abuse themselves - just have to keep watching their mother suffer from it.

What is the relevance of these examples?

To demonstrate that the law currently allows parents to make a lot of decisions for their children themselves. Some of them may not lead to an increased risk of death, but they can potentially leave a person with a lifetime of serious MH issues.

There is a big wide space between raising children in state-run institutions and telling parents that they are wrong to risk their kids’ lives on the basis of lies and misinformation. This type of reasoning is called a straw-man argument and is a way of deflecting attention from the real debate.

Yes, I know what a straw-man argument is, thank you, and I disagree that this is one. If your OP was that vaccination should be made mandatory, I would fully understand, but if it's only about what level of responsibility a parent is legally allowed to have, where do you draw the line if things are all legal?

Feeding children endless sweets and no vegetables will likely leave them with worse health (and possibly a lower life-expectancy) than they would have had with a good balanced diet. It's not illegal and the effects may not be clearly seen until decades later. The same is true with my previous point about MH issues following a toxic childhood experience. The law is the mark in the sand and, if you feel so strongly about something, your best recourse is to lobby for it to become law rather than just try to shut down discussion on it.

Many pro-lifers would say that abortion categorically does risk the life of children. Of course, many others disagree with this.

I doubt, though, that they would claim it risks the lives of other children. Refusing to vaccinate does.

Indeed they should be assisted, but should they be legally forced to? What if they don't want to? We've had previous threads where some people put up with the abuse because they don't want the perceived 'shame' of divorce or even because they don't want to to give up financial security. The children may never be the (active) targets of the abuse themselves - just have to keep watching their mother suffer from it.

If children are endangered by domestic abuse and the abused parent refuses to leave the abuser, the children will be removed from the care of their parent and placed with other relatives or with a foster family.

To demonstrate that the law currently allows parents to make a lot of decisions for their children themselves. Some of them may not lead to an increased risk of death, but they can potentially leave a person with a lifetime of serious MH issues.

And that’s very bad. But not really relevant, since what we are discussing here is a parental decision which actively makes it more likely that a child will die.

Yes, I know what a straw-man argument is, thank you, and I disagree that this is one.

Sorry, I was needlessly patronising there. But this absolutely is a straw man argument. You can’t say that you have an issue with me wanting all kids to be vaccinated because it’s basically the same as the state raising your children. They are clearly not the same thing.

If your OP was that vaccination should be made mandatory, I would fully understand, but if it's only about what level of responsibility a parent is legally allowed to have, where do you draw the line if things are all legal?

I don’t really understand this point. I would love it if refusing to vaccinate (unless there was a valid medical exemption) was illegal, but surely that isn’t what anti-vaxxers want?

Feeding children endless sweets and no vegetables will likely leave them with worse health (and possibly a lower life-expectancy) than they would have had with a good balanced diet. It's not illegal and the effects may not be clearly seen until decades later. The same is true with my previous point about MH issues following a toxic childhood experience. The law is the mark in the sand and, if you feel so strongly about something, your best recourse is to lobby for it to become law rather than just try to shut down discussion on it.

Ah, I think I see what you mean.

I think you’re conflating different things. I’ve asked whether MN should delete threads that post lies and misinformation about vaccines. I don’t think that’s the same as saying there can be no debate about whether refusing to vaccinate should be illegal, or no debate about whether parents should be allowed to risk their children’s lives. They are different issues.

I've seen threads where the OP has asked a question about vaccine safety as they are concerned about vaccinating their child.

To be fair, a doctor or relevant nurse would be the best person to ask about vaccine safety as specifically applied to a given child.

Unfortunately, all sort of trolls do post seemingly innocuous threads. Many pps have learned how to recognise them.

Anti-vaxxers boil my blood.

Fortunately, their posts show them to be the gullible, uninformed and dangerous idiots we know they are.

So you mean delete stuff you don't agree with?

Unfortunately, all sort of trolls do post seemingly innocuous threads. Many pps have learned how to recognise them

Agreed @lweji

People claiming to be "on the fence" and saying "Anti-vaxxers may have a point/be on to something" are most certainly already anti-vaxxers trying to further their cause. Pathetic and disgusting.

I am not anti vaccination by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think that it’s possible to overload a child’s immmune system with the number of vaccines we give now and the schedule which they are given in.

I see this increasingly frequently - I’m really interested in what it’s based on.