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 ?

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.

Sometimes. Sometimes we don’t. Autonomy as regards healthcare is - outside extreme circumstances such as a loss of capacity or abusive behaviour towards a child - one of the areas where we don’t have to do so. It’s not like paying taxes or following the law. Your rights stop where my body begins.

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.

True. It doesn’t stop it being a right.

You are saying parents should have an absolute right to decide what goes into their children's bodies

Of course you are being obtuse. I didn’t say “absolute” at all. I recognise that I can’t prevent iron or oxygen entering my child’s body. I maintain that I can prevent crack from doing so. All chemicals.

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.

You have continually shown on this thread that you do not understand the different between action and the absence of action, and the different moral implications of the two.

Am I obliged not to run you over? Yes.

Am I obliged to step in with my body to prevent harm to yours, if someone else tries to run you over? No.

hercule what if you believe nappies and toilets are harmful, do you also have the right to let your dc squat wherever? Ignoring the gross element, most healthy adults and children probably won’t catch anything, or if they do it will be unpleasant rather than serious. It’s only the more vulnerable that have their risk increased. Should your right to avoid the (real to you) risk of nappies trump the real risk to others?

@herculepoirot2 and you singularly fail to recognise social responsibility.

@herculepoirot2 and you singularly fail to recognise social responsibility.

That isn’t true. I recognise some responsibility in this circumstance. What I am saying is simply that, in a situation where I believe that my responsibility to you and my responsibility to my child are in direct conflict, I will always choose my child.

TrainspottingWelsh

Like bellinsurge, you are confusing action with an absence of action. I don’t have the right to shit in the street, doesn’t matter why I want to do it. However, if the Government brought in a law saying I had to let someone else shit in my mouth because it was safer for them than risking doing it in a toilet, I would have the right to say no. That’s assault.

You equate the tiny possibility of a negative reaction to a vaccine with the realistic possibility of an immunocompromised person dying of measles. You are skewing your analysis.

That’s dreadful! These people think they’re making a stand and proving a point but measles can cause all sorts of things, even blindness. Idiots.

You equate the tiny possibility of a negative reaction to a vaccine with the realistic possibility of an immunocompromised person dying of measles. You are skewing your analysis.

I don’t. My child is vaccinated. I am saying it is my decision. So if another vaccine came on to the market, even if not administering it to my child carried a risk to you, I would reserve the right to decide whether or not to do it, based on my understanding of the risk in that particular situation.

The tiny risk to them versus the significant and realistic risk to another person. You are making a false equivalency.

The tiny risk to them versus the significant and realistic risk to another person. You are making a false equivalency.

1. No, I am not. I don’t know what the risks involved in this hypothetical vaccine would be until I look into it.
2. I am not equating them. I am saying the risk of significant harm to my child outweighs the risk to you, when it comes to my own actions to prevent one or the other.

That is likely to horrify you. Sorry. I would challenge any parent on here to honestly give a different answer.

The tiny risk to them versus the significant and realistic risk to another person.

And to themselves! Measles is not to be trifled with and you can't predict in advance who will suffer severe and long term consequences.

The tiny tiny tiny tiny risk vs the realistic risk.

I’m not confusing action and absence of action. Most toddlers would be quite happy to go wherever. As adults we take deliberate action to prevent that, either with nappies or taking them somewhere appropriate. So allowing your toddler to shit on a table using your logic, would simply be failing to take action under the delusional belief nappies and toilets pose a risk.

I’m not confusing action and absence of action. Most toddlers would be quite happy to go wherever. As adults we take deliberate action to prevent that, either with nappies or taking them somewhere appropriate. So allowing your toddler to shit on a table using your logic, would simply be failing to take action under the delusional belief nappies and toilets pose a risk.

Fair point. But you are still responsible for what your child does, including there being shit all over the table. I don’t know where you would stand with that legally.

That’s not the same as not vaccinating, because my child has the right to bodily autonomy. Nobody has the right to force medical treatment on her.

I get that you are trying to approach this problem analogously, but healthcare autonomy is a right that stands apart. It isn’t the same as whether or not you wear clothes, for example.

And I would ask people to remember that this principle of autonomy isn’t something I made up: it is the law.

*An adult patient who…suffers from no mental incapacity has an absolute right to choose whether to consent to medical treatment… This right of choice is not limited to decisions which others might regard as sensible. It exists notwithstanding that the reasons for making the choice are rational, irrational, unknown or even non-existent.

Lord Donaldson. Re T (Adult) [1992] 4 All ER 649.*

Parental responsibility means the parent makes those decisions on behalf of the child. Yes, that can be set aside, but the bar is higher than the decision that vaccination isn’t in the child’s best interests.

Exactly, legally you wouldn’t be allowed to make that decision because we live in a society where irrational beliefs don’t take precedence over proven harm or risk to others. Same as we can have whatever religious beliefs we want, but if they pose risk or harm to our children/ others then the scientific evidence takes over.

Vaccines may not currently fall under that umbrella, but I can see the argument for why they should. Even if my personal belief is that public awareness would be more constructive

Exactly, legally you wouldn’t be allowed to make that decision because we live in a society where irrational beliefs don’t take precedence over proven harm or risk to others.

Again, you are forgetting that the principle of medical autonomy is different to the principle of general autonomy. We do live in a society where I can choose not to be vaccinated, despite the indirect risk that may present to others. See above.

And once you start to undermine the principle of medical autonomy for utilitarian ends, you can end up in some pretty unpleasant spots.

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.

I'm not being daft. Humans breath and we need food and water to survive. The government controls, to a greater or lesser extent what we consume and what we breathe.

Chemicals are entering your and you child's body every day, you only have limited control over that.

We all breathe come chemicals that are damaging and have no positive effects, so why is a vaccination different?

We all breathe come chemicals that are damaging and have no positive effects, so why is a vaccination different?

Because we do have control over it.

"And once you start to undermine the principle of medical autonomy for utilitarian ends, you can end up in some pretty unpleasant spots."
Ah, I'm a nazi for wanting people to protect herd immunity. Was wondering how long that would take.

Ah, I'm a nazi for wanting people to protect herd immunity. Was wondering how long that would take.

I didn’t call you a Nazi.

But the Nazis certainly had a ‘for the greater good’ attitude to personal choice. It’s not for me.

But more importantly, it is against the law.