Or are compulsory vaccines the best political policy the Tories have ever come up with?

[HollyGoLoudly1]

In the news today, Tory health secretary is investigating compulsory vaccinations for school children.

Before I don my hard hat, for background I have a close family member who is immunocompromised. He has had multiple hospital admissions over the years for simple viruses and other illnesses that most of us wouldn't even need to stay off work for. If he catches something like measles it could be fatal.

To be honest, even disregarding this family member, I am very, very pro-vaccine and would support this policy no matter what. Even if it is from the Tories (who I definitely do not support).

puts on hard hat

The long-time ethical consensus in the Western world is one of medical autonomy.

For a reality check on mandatory vaccinations in various western countries, see here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccinationpolicy#Unitedd_Kingdom

TitsalinaBumSquash

You’re not selfish. I will tell you the truth: I would tie down the kids of every person on MN and vaccinate them if I thought it would save my child’s life. I would probably do worse. But the point is that the law is meant to prevent me from doing so. It is meant to protect their autonomy, and to protect your child as far as it can without violating the rights of others. The problem with this policy is that it violates the rights of others.

ErrolTheDragon

Yes, it is getting worse.

So you want to coerce them. Goodbye autonomy over our own bodies. There is no ethical basis for what you are suggesting; you just don’t care.

The actual ethical question is the question of conflicting rights and needs, and who to prioritise in the provision of state services.

So you want to coerce them. Goodbye autonomy over our own bodies. There is no ethical basis for what you are suggesting; you just don’t care.

Coercing them would be pinning them down and forcing to have the injection. Not letting people into certain premises because they aren't vaccinated is not the same as coercion because they don't have to go to those premises.

The actual ethical question is the question of conflicting rights and needs, and who to prioritise in the provision of state services.

No, because that presupposes a starting point where the Government has ownership over my body and is entitled to make that decision. It doesn’t. I came into the world a free human being with a natural body belonging to me only. Nobody has the right to coerce me to make permanent changes to it to preserve others. I understand why quite a few people think otherwise, but I don’t think it can really be supported when you get right down to it. Is the function of my body to protect others from naturally occurring illness? No.

woodchuck99

But that conflicts with their right to receive an education, so yes, it does.

My youngest had a reaction to her three year old jabs. But I’d still support this. No school for unvaccinated children unless for medical reasons.

I definitely would not support excluding children who can't have vaccines, or making every vaccine under the sun compulsory
I don't see how you can support this policy then. You have no way of ensuring those safeguards.
It's more likely than DCs end up excluded from education - which is an unalienable human right. So you undermine the rights of the child. You entrench one rule for the rich and another for the poor unless you're assuming private schools would also adopt this policy You cement a cycle of non-vaccination because anti-vaxxers' DCs will be excluded from school and hence hearing other views/opinions.

Absolutely. I’d vote for the Tories off the back of compulsory vaccinations.

No, because that presupposes a starting point where the Government has ownership over my body and is entitled to make that decision. It doesn’t. I came into the world a free human being with a natural body belonging to me only. Nobody has the right to coerce me to make permanent changes to it to preserve others. I understand why quite a few people think otherwise, but I don’t think it can really be supported when you get right down to it. Is the function of my body to protect others from naturally occurring illness? No.

No, you are conflating two issues.

What you are trying to suggest is a single issue is actually two separate ones: first, the rights and limits associated with bodily autonomy and second

I don’t think it crosses into coercion to say that if a choice you have made is going to deny another child access to schooling, then the impacts of that choice should not automatically be visited upon the other child rather than your own.

The right to an education is not absolute and certainly not absolute in mainstream schools. There are many conditions applied. The needs and safety of both the individual child and other children are taken into account in determining provision. If one child’s exercising the right to an education effectively removes another child’s ability to exercise the same right, a balance needs to be reached.

Yes, it is getting worse.

That's a matter of opinion.

If the polio vaccine was mantatory in the few remaining areas where the disease is still endemic for a few years, no child would ever have to be vaccinated against it ever again. The first, eponymous, vaccination is now completely obsolete - the scourge of smallpox is gone. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've read that achieving this did require some mandatory vaccination. Do people think that was wrong and would prefer smallpox to still exist?

You also get into the realms of what constitutes a medical reason.

My youngest sees two specialists for her various health conditions. When it came to the MMR one said not to do it, and the other said absolutely to do it.

So you’d have to end up with having a system that adjudicated over who was exempt and who wasn’t. And we’ve all seen how good the new systems are with PIP and DLA changeover.

But that conflicts with their right to receive an education, so yes, it does.

You were talking about automony over your own body and only adults have this anyway. Adults don't have the right to receive an education.

ErrolTheDragon

We will just have to disagree. I don’t and cannot agree with mandatory medical treatments.

woodchuck99

But you know from the whole context of this discussion that I am talking about parents.

I live in France and it's the law here.

We have to provide copies of the Carnet Sante (healthbook) for schools and even holiday clubs insist in a completed form with the immunizations detailed otherwise your child cannot attend.

It seems to work very well and I've not heard anyone moan about it at all.

making every vaccine under the sun compulsory

Straw man. Nobody is remotely suggesting that.

So you’d have to end up with having a system that adjudicated over who was exempt and who wasn’t. And we’ve all seen how good the new systems are with PIP and DLA changeover.

I think that if any healthcare professional said it may not be a good idea, that would be enough.

Sorry

• and second, the rights and limits associated with access to state services when the impact of individual decisions related to bodily autonomy create a situation of competing and conflicting rights.

What you are trying to suggest is a single issue is actually two separate ones: first, the rights and limits associated with bodily autonomy and second

I don’t know what distinction you are making from this.

I don’t think it crosses into coercion to say that if a choice you have made is going to deny another child access to schooling, then the impacts of that choice should not automatically be visited upon the other child rather than your own.

There are to limiting factors (if such a situation were to exist): one, their own physical condition; two, the decision of other children (through their parents) not to accept a particular medical treatment. The first is tragic. The second is the absolute right of those other people. There is no right to insist that others inject themselves with drugs to mitigate the effects of your own ill-health. No.

*two

But you know from the whole context of this discussion that I am talking about parents

Then why do you keep talking about ownership over your own body?. You do not own your children's bodies.

I think that if any healthcare professional said it may not be a good idea, that would be enough.

I think anyone who had been through any disability benefit claim would see that assumption as very naive. If they are going to bring in a policy that will be undoubtedly controversial they won’t want people to get round it left, right and centre. Plus they will want to try and persuade as many people as possible to not even bother trying to be exempt and just go for it.

They don’t take the word of doctors and specialists for PIP or DLA so I seriously doubt they would in this one.

They’ll want their own departments to decide I’d bet.