UK lost measles free status

[Stressedout10]

So due to all the anti Vaxers the WHO have stripped us of our measles free status.
What next ?

Haven't RTFT but this new status will have been supported by 2 of my friends who have refused to vaccinate (between them) their 8 children.

Clearly it does, hence the requirement for children to receive full time education and the entire child protection system.

I should have said, the State doesn’t make medical choices for children. The parents do, until a case for abuse or negligence is proved.

Yeah, actually the state does have the right to say imaginary healthcare concerns are imaginary when there’s scientific evidence to prove it and you’re risking harm to others.

And to answer your question to bellin yes, I had dds preschool booster done knowing there was a large risk I’d harm her. She had known side effects from the first, and risked the same or worse for the second. Luckily she was only ill again. It would have been nice to rely on herd immunity till she was a bit older, but anti vac wankers prevented that option. Still, not as dangerous as if she’d caught the illnesses.

Yeah, actually the state does have the right to say imaginary healthcare concerns are imaginary when there’s scientific evidence to prove it and you’re risking harm to others.

It doesn’t. Well, it can say it, but it can’t force you to accept medical treatment for your child without proving serious harm will come if you don’t. To your child. Not to someone else’s child. Your job as a parent is to make decisions on behalf of your child.

I should have said, the State doesn’t make medical choices for children. The parents do, until a case for abuse or negligence is proved.

Even that isn't correct, given cases like Re E (A minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1993]

There is a current outbreak at my baby’s nursery. I am now waiting to see if she has been infected. I’m beyond worried but am powerless. She is too young for vaccine.
I think vaccinations should be mandatory for attendance at nursery or state school. Allow the choice but make it a hard choice not to vaccinate. I think protecting those can’t get the vaccine is crucial in society (due to health, age, etc).

So, what can we do to convince people that the risks to their child are low enough to vaccinate?
I wouldn’t be keen on 4 yr olds having it done at school tbh. I think that puts a burden on school staff that they shouldn’t have. Plus, any adverse reactions would be much better occuring in a Gp surgery or clinic. How would you monitor 30 dc for the school day afterwards? I would definitely withdraw my child from that situation.

The state makes choices for dc all the time.
If the USA which places a significant value on individual liberty has States which insist on vaccination I can see no good reason for the US not too.
It isn't about accessing public services where I live as you aren't allowed to access private schooling either. It is about protecting dc and adults as a whole population including those who cannot protect themselves.
If you feel that isn't possible as a parent you can always home school but at least you are understanding the gravity of the choices you are making.
In that situation I think the vaccination rate in the UK would rise significantly as many people wouldn't want to have to take in the full time education of their own dc. Some would do so or already do but many wouldn't want to pay that price.

Even that isn't correct, given cases like Re E (A minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1993]

That is the State going to court to remove the right a parent has, not the parent not having the right to begin with, yes?

You can’t protect yourself by forcing medical interventions on others. That isn’t autonomy. If someone is harmed because I exercised my right to decide what I put in my body, that is tragic, but autonomy is the right to make decisions about things that affect you, in your own sphere. Not to extend your own sphere to everyone else and tell them they have to do things that protect you

But that isn't what's happening here! What's happening is parents are taking decisions on behalf of their children which are harmful to those children. It's not (just) about herd immunity. It's about the decision a parent makes for their own child, and the potential harm that causes to that specific child.

I believe children have a right to be protected from harm from their parents, and I believe that right trumps their parents' right to make harmful decisions about their children. Fundamentally, that's what I believe it comes down to - whose rights you protect. And as I said, I will always choose the rights of a child to not be harmed over a parent's right to make harmful decisions.

In the UK parents have responsibilities not rights an important difference.

And that boy had cancer and needed a transfusion to save his life. That isn’t comparable.

‘No, but then I wouldn’t have the right to send my child to school with measles either.’

Measles has an incubation period where you are asymptomatic, you wouldn’t know they had measles.

I also don’t understand why unvaccinated child puts another child at risk. Woodlandwitch of course not vaccinating your child puts others at risk, particularly those children who are too young or unable to have the vaccination. If you are unvaccinated you might catch measles, if you catch it you can pass it onto others. I think around 90%of children have to be vaccinated to give herd immunity.

In the UK parents have responsibilities not rights an important difference.

Then they have the responsibility to make medical choices on behalf of their child. It doesn’t matter how you put it. The child is a person and the State can’t force medical treatments on them without removing the parents’ ‘responsibilities’.

Measles has an incubation period where you are asymptomatic, you wouldn’t know they had measles.

I know. Once it is clear that a child has an infectious disease, obviously they can’t go to school. That doesn’t mean they are causing the other children harm by not being vaccinated. There is a small risk of harm. It doesn’t justify forcing medical treatments on all children, in perpetuity, every time a new vaccine becomes available.

But that isn't what's happening here! What's happening is parents are taking decisions on behalf of their children which are harmful to those children. It's not (just) about herd immunity. It's about the decision a parent makes for their own child, and the potential harm that causes to that specific child.

Potential harm isn’t harm. There is a small risk of harm. The State wouldn’t remove the parent’s right to assess that risk for themselves, or force the parents to give their child particular medical interventions. It would be profoundly unethical, because the child does need treatment until they are sick.

Ok. I’ve decided all the scientific evidence about smoking is rubbish, including that on second hand smoke. I have bodily autonomy and it’s not up to the state to tell me whether I can or can’t smoke. So I’m going to smoke wherever and with whom ever I like, whether that be with the children I’m minding in nursery or the asthmatic patient I’m treating. Because I have bodily autonomy and there shouldn’t be any legal or moral right to stop me smoking anywhere, regardless of any risks you say there are to anyone else. Even if there are, smoking reduces my stress, stops me overeating etc etc so why should I put myself out for other people’s benefit. Perfectly reasonable.

The nursery I sign my son up to checked his vaccines were up to date ... not sure what would happen if they were not but gave me some Relief just glad that he will have had his 12 month injections when he goes to nursery to help avoid such illness

*doesn’t

TrainspottingWelsh

Second hand smoke is a chemical you would be introducing to people around you, knowingly and definitely. It isn’t comparable.

Anyway, I think I am going to leave things there. MN is often like this: people arguing until their teeth bleed that other people don’t have rights that they actually do have, because it happens to suit them to pretend otherwise.

Parents who don’t vaccinate their children expose other people’s children to harm.

‘I know. Once it is clear that a child has an infectious disease, obviously they can’t go to school’

They could have already infected an immunocompromised child by that point.

There is a significant difference between rights and responsibilities. You don't own your dc, you have a responsibility to protect them, if you are for what ever reason unable to this then it isn't unreasonable for the state to step into that breach.