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

JassyRadlett

Right, I see what you were writing now. I agree with you about the quandary, just not the conclusion. I think bodily autonomy is too fundamental a right to be ‘balanced’ against the interests of others. What’s next?

My child only needs one kidney, she has two, yours needs a transplant. It’s only a small operation...

My child doesn’t want to give blood. Yours needs blood. It’s only a pinprick.

My child seems to be immune to a new disease. Nobody knows why. Millions are dying. Let’s do some blood tests...

woodchuck99

Because you know - and you are pretending you don’t - that the parents act as proxy for the child until the child grows up.

Compulsory? Forcing people to put things in their children’s bodies they don’t want to? Nah. See, none of that’s true really, is it? We have, or rather, are about to have a similar law right here in California - all children must be vaccinated except those with medical exemptions.

Sounds draconian and, if you read anti-vaxxer propaganda, it’s the first step to being marched off to concentration camps but, as I tell my anti-vax acquaintances, no one will actually be coming to their homes and forcibly sticking needles in their kids, no one. They still have a choice to either vaccinate or not but if they choose not then they need to make alternative arrangements for their children’s education because they won’t be allowed in the public schools.

Because you know - and you are pretending you don’t - that the parents act as proxy for the child until the child grows up.

I'm not sure what you mean by "proxy" but either way I really dislike it when parents act like they own their children which is what you are doing when you talk about ownership of your body when you are actually talking about your children's bodies.

woodchuck99

It isn’t at all. I own my body. My child owns her body. Until she can exercise her autonomy, it is my job to exercise it for her.

One reason the MMR vaccination was introduced instead of single vaccinations was cost & convenience to the NHS, but since it was introduced the level of immunizations has fallen. Why isn't this investigated instead of blaming parents? If the uptake by doing single vaccinations was higher, then bring back the single vaccinations & maybe look at the timings of when vaccinations are given, would the uptake be higher if the vaccination was given when the child was older, many parents choose to spread vaccinations out more than the advised programme. If forced vaccinations start I can see a time when health officials will be knocking on doors to force compliance, instead of using funding to force compliance, why not use the funding to improve confidence, reopen surestart centres & children's centres to give health workers somewhere to build a relationship with parents & families to be able to answer questions instead of expecting parents to comply with little or no information.

It isn’t at all. I own my body. My child owns her body. Until she can exercise her autonomy, it is my job to exercise it for her.

By defintion you can't exercise body autonomy for someone else though! You are arguing that parents should be given the right to choose whatever happens to their children's bodies (which are not their own) and that they there shouldn't be any intervention however much they are going against medical advice.

By defintion you can't exercise body autonomy for someone else though! You are arguing that parents should be given the right to choose whatever happens to their children's bodies (which are not their own) and that they there shouldn't be any intervention however much they are going against medical advice.

Of course there can. My child can own property, but there has to be a trustee making the decisions until she is an adult. Same with medicine, and you know it. In extreme circumstances, the Government can step in to act in HER interests. But this isn’t the basis on which they are proposing mandatory vaccinations. They are proposing that based on a ‘balance’ argument, and that does violate her rights.

‘And I've said on here a million times that one can virtue signal about social responsibility all one likes, but in the end, if your child is the one with nasty side effects, nobody is going to help you.’

It’s not virtue signaling, it’s medical fact. The fewer people that are immunised the greater the harm to society. Plus you never know when you yourself may become immunocompromised. If you get cancer and have to undergo chemotherapy you could be killed by your own unvaccinated children. By vaccinating you protect everybody including yourself.

Nothing in this life is without risk but your critical thinking skills must be seriously lacking if you can’t accept that the risk is statistically minimal compared to the harm of the diseases they prevent (your child is far more likely to be seriously harmed in the car on the way to doctors to get the vaccine, but I’m pretty sure you’ll still use a car seat/seatbelt!).

Of course there can. My child can own property, but there has to be a trustee making the decisions until she is an adult.

The trustee can't do whatever they want with the child's property though so it is not the same as owning it themselves. You wouldn't complain that you weren't being given autonomy over your own property if the state intervened because you weren't acting in your child's best interests.

Again with the hyperbole. Newsflash: they can’t force vaccines on your children. All this talk of compromising bodily autonomy and knocking on doors is outrage-generating bullshit. The consequence of not vaccinating is not prison camp or having to go into hidingin underground bunkers, it’s hav8ng to home educate. Seems to me, if you’re not prepared to make that sacrifice in order to protect your precious offspring against the sinister depredations of the govt and Big Pharma, your bodily autonomy principles are as fucking meaningless as the exhaustive (and exhausting) ‘research’ you claim shows that vaccines cause autism - clue: they don’t).

woodchuck99

I didn’t say a parent could do whatever they wanted with the child. There are laws preventing you from hurting or abusing your children. But in a non-emergency situation where both decisions have some risk, it is up to the parent to decide which route to take.

But anyway, we are going in circles! Enough time spent here for one day.

There will be exceptions for those who cannot genuinely have vaccines on health grounds but other than that it's a marvellous idea.
My dc are all vaccinated ( including the expensive chicken pox vaccine) I don't see why my dc have to protect those kids Who's parents couldn't be bothered to protect them vaccine wise.

I am currently looking into paying for meningitis B vaccines for my kids as it wasn't available when they were toddlers.

I didn’t say a parent could do whatever they wanted with the child. There are laws preventing you from hurting or abusing your children. But in a non-emergency situation where both decisions have some risk, it is up to the parent to decide which route to take.

There is a risk with every medical treatment but that doesn't mean that parents always get the choice to deny their child treatment. Obviously the medics don't decide either and it would have to go to court in individual cases but the precedent is there for not giving parents total control over their children's bodies in the way they can for their own.

I generally like the idea, but think its pointless if you include a loop hole for 'strong religious belief' as was being annonced. People can just declare ani-vax to be a religion and the whole thing is pointless.

If you are going to draw a line in the sand it has to be:

Is there evidence that vaccination is counter-indicated for this child?

and only scientifically based evidence will be considered.

No amount of moral objection or fiction from anti-vax, or fiction from 'gods' should be acceptable.

Vaccination comes with risks. Blood transfusions come with risks.

When these and other procedures come with risks, then they should be a choice.
For minors under 18 that choice is made by their parent or guardian.

If vaccines are compulsory then all medical treatments should be compulsory and abortion should be banned.

If there is no bodily autonomy then there should be no bodily autonomy across the board.

If there is bodily autonomy then this should extend right across the board in the same way.

It's a massive slippery slope.

*cinderellainyellakissedafella

There will be exceptions for those who cannot genuinely have vaccines on health grounds but other than that it's a marvellous idea.
My dc are all vaccinated ( including the expensive chicken pox vaccine) I don't see why my dc have to protect those kids Who's parents couldn't be bothered to protect them vaccine wise.*

You made that choice for your children, the flip side is that they may be protecting other peoples children. They may not as flu vacine sheds horribly especially the nasal spray version.

However you made that choice for your children so why say I don't see why my children have to protect others children? You were presumably going to make that choice to vaccinate them anyway.

Flirty, that is absolute nonsense.

The doctors and courts will intervene if you deny your child a life saving blood transfusion.

My choice to have an abortion affects no one else medically.

Vaccination is somewhat unique in that your individual medical choice has an affect on others health.

At least make that distinction when arguing for autonomy.

So now we are on to no religious freedom.
As indicated above.

If there is no religious freedom then there is no freedom, period.

A fundamental right is the right to our beliefs, hence even racists get to air their views as do many other undesirable groups. Disgusting yes, but who is to say its no more disgusting then someone who doesn't believe in certain scientific principles.
Even the scientific community don't all agree on everything.

So if you say no on religious grounds then I say no on grounds of protecting society. You didn't protect my rights so why should I protect yours.

If this type of thing goes through it will lead to so much more. I would truly opt out of society if that was the case, as would many others, leading to a more fractured divisive society than even Brexit has caused.

But hey it will be worth it, when the government knows divide and conquer works.

After all, it would have been simpler and cheaper to engage with the communities who are not anti Vax but who for whatever reason has not vaccinated their child. It would be simpler to stop healthcare professionals not answering even simple questions when that response puts lots of parents off. It would be simpler to bring back single vaccines. There are literally dozens of things that the government could do to increase the vaccination numbers.

Maybe they haven't done these things and won't do these things as taking away bodily autonomy and then religious freedom suits their purposes far more.

And actually blood transfusions can be a risk but they are accepted medical practice.

Not all cases are won by the authorities because alternatives do exist that also save life's. It's just easier for a medical professional to go with the standard. Lots of work has been done in this area. So that analogy doesn't fit your view either.

You still have religious freedom, no one is saying you can’t practise your religion. If your religion precludes you from vaccinating your children (I’ve yet to see any scripture from any religion that definitively says this btw) then, again, you have the option to home educate.

Out of interest which religions forbid vaccination? Genuinely asking as far as I’m aware all religious scripture pre-dates the invention of vaccines.

Still people going on about "bodily autonomy" as if their child's body is their own. You are only given choices if you act in your child's interest and if not the courts/law will intervene. Anyone who thinks you decide on health treatment until the child is 18 is also in for a rude awakening. The age of consent is 16 and even before that if the child is considered "Gillick competent" they may be able to over rule your decisions.
You don't have to give the vaccinations anyway. You can home educate.