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 ?

No it isn't 50/50, which is why my children are vaccinated. I am grateful for vaccination and think parents ought to do it. But I don't agree with it being forced or linked to a child's right to access education (that their parents have paid for via taxation). I believe bodily autonomy is too important to give up.

Yes, and the majority ARE vaccinated!

Yes - but unfortunately not currently a sufficiently large majority for herd immunity to be properly effective and so those who do have contraindications are more at risk. As are the unnecessarily unvaccinated kids.

So, we see upturns when there are outbreaks and people's risk perception gets a dose of reality.

There is a huge difference between denying a sick child medicine which will make them well and choosing not to inject a healthy child with a vaccine they may or may not benefit from.

That would be valid if it were a 50/50 risk, and if it were not the case that in choosing not to vaccinate you put other people at risk. As a society, we accept that parents don't have full autonomy over their children's bodies.

I used to love larking about in my 1970s car boot with the dog while Dad was driving. I could stick my head over the back seat and play peekaboo. You mean that kind of "bodily autonomy "?

ErrolTheDragon

Biff - the original point was, your claim that the other poster's unvaccinated infant would be banned from nursery along with those who were unvacced due to parental choice is invalid. Before the age that infants can be vaccinated, they're clearly in exactly the same category as those who can't be vaccinated for good medical reasons. And the younger ones are less likely to be catchers/spreaders.

But the poster is complaining about other people's unvaccinated kids being around hers, when hers is equally likely to be spreading bugs to theirs. I just can't agree with the idea of banning unvaccinated kids from nursery where half the room is equally likely to be unvaccinated spreaders. "Parental choice" is generally based on having weighed up risks. I reacted very badly to a vaccine and couldn't have any more vaccines, on medical advice at the time, however these days they say that previous contraindications are no longer considered contraindications and even children with severe egg allergy are told to have egg-containing jabs as the risk of reaction is "minimal". It may be minimal to a medical professional who doesn't have to deal with the consequences of a severe reaction, but it certainly isn't minimal when it has happened to yourself or your own child. They are trying to maximise coverage by minimising standards, which is shocking really.

I really shouldn't read these threads.

When my son was born and we were going through all the vaccine process it wasn’t the risk of autism that made me concerned about giving the MMR in one dose.
There were other cases of vaccine injuries relating to the MMR that scared me more and must scare a lot of people so I went down the single route too

So despite being worried about vaccine injury you made your Son have 9 injections when he only needed 3?

Vasya

So if the antivax agenda continues to succeed, and vaccination rates drop low enough that epidemics of previously virtually eradicated illnesses become commonplace again, will you change your mind?

I will not change my mind that people have the right to decide on their own medical care. No.

I think this is disingenuous in the extreme. You can't pretend that your actions don't put other people at risk simply because that isn't your primary intention.

I am not pretending. I accept that my actions to protect my child could carry some risk to others. I don’t believe I am responsible for the risk, if the issue is a compromised immune system. I believe I am acting within my rights to prefer my child’s health to that of another person.

If a parent satisfied themselves that on the balance of evidence their child would be better off only eating one meal a day, would you support them in that? Do they not have the right to decide what chemicals they put into their child? Why is putting chemicals into their child to prevent starvation something a parent is morally required to do, but putting chemicals into their child to prevent disease something that they can choose not to do?

The child is either adequately nourished or they are not. I don’t care how often other people’s children get fed provided they are eating sufficient quantities of nutritious food. If the State sees that they are starving their child, that is harm. They can step in.

It doesn't really suit my argument. It's just that if I really believed you were just playing devil's advocate and this was all just an intellectual exercise to you, I would probably not bother arguing the point, since you wouldn't actually be harming your children. But I don't believe that's true, and so I feel a moral obligation to have the argument in case having the argument persuades you (and, I suppose, other antivaxxers reading the thread) to make better choices.

I am not an anti-vaxxer. Nor is this an intellectual exercise.

For the purposes of this discussion, it's an example of the state making medical choices for children even in the absence of abuse or neglect.

It isn’t. The boy would have died without the medical intervention in question.

The trouble with deciding what to put into your children's bodies is that you can't decide what bacteria will or will not enter their bodies. What you can decide is whether to take action to prevent that bacteria from harming them.

Where did I suggest I could control every molecule that entered my child’s body? I am talking about medical interventions. Don’t be obtuse.

On that basis, parents should have the free choice not to seek medical treatment for their children for easily treatable illnesses even if that risks severe disability or death for the child.

I have clearly talked about thresholds on this thread. When a parent’s choices risk serious, likely harm to a child, the State can take that parent to court and override their right to make those decisions. Until they do, the parent has the right to make those decisions. Some choices carry more serious consequences than others, which is recognised in the fact that parents are entitled to refuse vaccinations, but if their child needs a life-saving treatment and there is no very good reason why they shouldn’t have it (such as intense suffering caused by the treatment combined with a very small chance of success), the State will step in.

So no, my argument does not imply a right for parents to refuse life-saving treatment.

I like the idea of needing vaccinations for school but I can also see the other side that it is punishing the child for their parents' opinion

You could argue it's keeping unvaccinated children safer too, because if they're home schooled they're less likely to catch it from a fellow unvaccinated child.

Also, it's not the state depriving the child of its right to a state education in that scenario- it's the parents doing that. They should be inspected and if they fail to adequately homeschool they should be fined every inspection until the child is deemed to have access to an acceptable standard of education or is vaccinated and put in a school.

I do understand Hercules argument. But I find it a totally immoral and antisocial viewpoint. I don't agree that it's ok to consider a tiny risk to your own child above any consideration to wider society. Hercule says anyone would put their own child's welfare first, but I think it's a question of risk and degree. I don't want such a society where people won't take negligible risks for the benefit of society. A stupid example (there must be better ones) I wouldn't refuse to help a drowning person by throwing them a lifebelt even if that meant I had to let go of my child's hand, even though there was then a tiny risk my child might also fall in the water.

The child is either adequately nourished or they are not. I don’t care how often other people’s children get fed provided they are eating sufficient quantities of nutritious food. If the State sees that they are starving their child, that is harm. They can step in

Presumably then this means that you believe the state can step in and remove a child from the care of their parents if they get measles? That is harm.

I do understand Hercules argument. But I find it a totally immoral and antisocial viewpoint. I don't agree that it's ok to consider a tiny risk to your own child above any consideration to wider society. Hercule says anyone would put their own child's welfare first, but I think it's a question of risk and degree. I don't want such a society where people won't take negligible risks for the benefit of society. A stupid example (there must be better ones) I wouldn't refuse to help a drowning person by throwing them a lifebelt even if that meant I had to let go of my child's hand, even though there was then a tiny risk my child might also fall in the water.

I totally agree with this.

A stupid example (there must be better ones) I wouldn't refuse to help a drowning person by throwing them a lifebelt even if that meant I had to let go of my child's hand, even though there was then a tiny risk my child might also fall in the water.

That is a totally fair point. But the point here is that people have to be able to make those decisions for themselves. I wouldn’t do what you just said either - of course I would throw the life belt. But I would resist any legislation that tried to mandate my doing so on someone else’s say so, in case of a disagreement about the level of risk.

Presumably then this means that you believe the state can step in and remove a child from the care of their parents if they get measles? That is harm.

Providing the parents get the child the necessary medical treatment they need, no.

See, I disagree Towel. The 'I'm alright, Jack' viewpoint is instinctual and people will put them and theirs first to ultimately fulfill the biological imperative to ensure the survival of your genetic material into the next generation. And fair enough.

The issue here is that anti-vaxxers are misinformed about the relative risks of vaccination Vs remaining unvaccinated and that they are evangelical about said misinformation. We need an educational campaign to combat this information, coupled with protective measures for those who cannot vaccinate. Objectively, it is safer to vaccinate than not and the focus should be on getting people to see that, rather than on trying to convince them to put others first (won't work).

But yes, there’s a better one, Survival. I asked people at the start of this thread: would you genuinely inject your child with something you thought would harm them, to mitigate against a risk to someone else?

Let’s say the Government came up with a cold vaccine. They want your child to have it. You aren’t sure it’s safe yet. Are you honestly going to just give it to them?

*their genetic material, not yours! I need to proofread before posting.

I don’t care if people want to give their children the mmr or single vaccines, I was born in the early 70s I had a measles vaccine aged 2, my ds was born in 1999 he was offered the mmr at 15 months, I wonder why it’s been brought down to 12 months??

No. I am arguing against my child being forced to accept substances into her body against the choice of her parent.

So no tap water or cereal or bread? Or do the chemicals added to them for the benefit of public health not count?

Does she walk around in a mobile oxygen tent or never walk near a road?

*So no tap water or cereal or bread? Or do the chemicals added to them for the benefit of public health not count?

Does she walk around in a mobile oxygen tent or never walk near a road?*

It doesn’t help your argument to be daft. If I don’t want to give my child tap water, bottled water is an option. There is no law that says she has to drink from the tap. If I don’t want to give her bread, there is no law that says I have to.

Can you not see the difference?

My borough is the LOWEST. I'm shocked.

I believe I am acting within my rights to prefer my child’s health to that of another person.

But the way society works is that we recognise that there are sacrifices we have to make for the greater good, and because we recognise that ultimately that benefits us. We would all prefer not to have to pay taxes, we might prefer to chuck our rubbish in the streets rather than faff around with bins, we might prefer not to have to bother with educating our children.

If, ultimately, everyone decides that they prefer their child's health to anyone else's, the logical conclusion is that no-one vaccinates, and ultimately everyone's children are at much greater risk.

It isn’t. The boy would have died without the medical intervention in question.

So what? The fact is that, although no-one thought the parents were being abusive or neglectful, the state stepped in and made a medical choice. If you are saying that there is no choice when the alternative is death, look at the all the cases about withdrawal of medical treatment.

Where did I suggest I could control every molecule that entered my child’s body? I am talking about medical interventions. Don’t be obtuse.

It's not me being obtuse here. You are saying parents should have an absolute right to decide what goes into their children's bodies. But the nature of existence is that they can't control that absolutely; and the corollary of the right to decide what you will deliberately put into your child's body is the responsibility of deciding what you will do to protect them from harmful inputs that they can't avoid. It's irrational and irresponsible to decide that you will protect them from a very small possibility of harm by subjecting them to a much greater one; and arguably there comes a point where the state should consider stepping in to reverse that, just as it would for someone refusing medical treatment for a serious illness that involves putting chemicals into their child's body.

Preferring your child's health over another person isn't the same as actively doing something which puts another person at risk of death. Undermining herd immunity does just that.