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

It would more than suck to give away our right to medical autonomy.

Your children don't have medical autonomy in the first place though.

There is a choice. Nobody is being strapped down and assaulted with needles. If they choose not to vaccinate then that is their choice. Along with choosing not to integrate themselves into other aspects of society. 100% their choice.

I've been given permission to say this because it isn't my story to tell and could be very outing.

My friend has a 4 year old who was 9lb 8oz at birth. His dad is a US ob/gyn but their relationship was fleeting at best. She came back to the UK to have her son as soon as she found out she was pregnant and they tried to have a relationship but the way he treated her during pregnancy in regards to the wellbeing of the baby pushed them apart. He was very critical of the care here especially because of her age (she was 37!). Couldn't believe they were going to let her have a home birth as a geriatric! Anyway, it was mostly small arguments between them until she was 34 weeks and measured big and was sent for a scan which confirmed he was a sizeable lad. She was then given a consultant appointment to discuss the scan. In between this time, his dad was ADAMANT that she should have a caesarean at 38 weeks and any "doctor" who said anything different was a quack. He told her if she was his patient and refused, she would not be allowed in his clinic because they can do that to patients who won't adhere to recommendations.

She showed him research and NICE guidelines saying that all she needed was a diabetes test (which she had and was negative) and she could continue as normal but he insisted the doctor would say otherwise. The doctor didn't. She didn't even tear giving birth and although he was on the large side, he wouldn't make the papers at 9lb 8oz.

This caused a big rift between them and she did make another appointment with the consultant to speak through his concerns about their recommended care plan and the consultant told her that it takes a long time for the US to catch up to modern research. Especially where it reduces intervention rather than adds to it. So, basically, he could deny a woman pregnancy care for not adhering to outdated recommendations.

It's this sort of thing that makes me certain that we can't trust authorities to make decisions for us using the best and latest research.

Another big argument they had was over delayed cord clamping. He said it would make the baby have too much blood whereas her midwives were recommending it.

Brexit is a good example of what happens if you don't let Parliament make the decisions and have a referendum to let the people decide!

Parliament has been making the decisions since the referendum. Things could have panned out very differently.

They will have to home educate their children or send them to an independent school

So basically the elite can opt out of state control.

Parliament has been making the decisions since the referendum. Things could have panned out very differently.

I am not going to discuss Brexit because that because it is off topic but if you are one of the idiots who think that Brexit could have ever gone well then I can't take your argument on anything seriously.

I’ve never said anything of the sort. Thus your conditional tense insult is peculiar.

Your children don't have medical autonomy in the first place though.

Sigh. This has been covered by others already on the thread. Parents exercise autonomy for their children, including the need to give informed consent for medical procedures, until such point as the child is competent enough to exercise it for themselves.

You might find it illuminating to read up on how our standards for medical ethics came about in the first place. The events that led to the Beauchamp and Childress principles, in particular.

@BananasAreTheSourceOfEvil but you do have autonomy over your own body. We are talking about children!

I’ve never said anything of the sort. Thus your conditional tense insult is peculiar.

You very much suggested it.

Sigh. This has been covered by others already on the thread. Parents exercise autonomy for their children, including the need to give informed consent for medical procedures, until such point as the child is competent enough to exercise it for themselves.

Sigh. Yes, it has been covered. You cannot exercise autonomy for someone else by definition. Your children are not an extension of yourself.

Sigh. Yes, it has been covered. You cannot exercise autonomy for someone else by definition. Your children are not an extension of yourself.

??!

No, your children are not an extension of yourself, but it is recognised in medical ethics that, except in very limited circumstances, parents act as surrogates for their children when treatment decisions are made, and are the ones who need to give (or withhold) informed consent.

The pertinent point here is not the dictionary definition of ‘autonomy’, but the way autonomy as a principle of medical ethics (and it is usually viewed as the most important of the four high-level medical wthical principles), are conceived of, and applied, and have been for the last forty years.

Like I said upthread, why not read up on the four principles, rather than revert to dictionary definitions which cannot hope to cover the complexity of the issue in practice?

No, your children are not an extension of yourself, but it is recognised in medical ethics that, except in very limited circumstances, parents act as surrogates for their children when treatment decisions are made, and are the ones who need to give (or withhold) informed consent.

Yes, parents do usually have to give their consent but if that is taken away for whatever reason they are losing their parental authority not their bodily autonomy. You are trying to conflate the two to win an argument and when people point out that you are incorrect resort to trying to patronise them.

Like I said upthread, why not read up on the four principles, rather than revert to dictionary definitions which cannot hope to cover the complexity of the issue in practice?

More attempts at patronising. I am a health care professional and know a fair amount about medical ethics including the four principles. Not letting children into public schools unless they have been vaccinated is not an example of taking away body autonomy and does not go against the four principles.

We will have to beg to differ then, woodchuck. I’m a HCP too. I don’t agree with you, but there’s no point trying to carry this on.

I’m not personally in favour of draconian/authoritarian measures, even if they are supposedly for the overall good. I don’t think ‘the end justifies the means’ is a particularly British value either, and can’t see how it would play culturally here. But then, I guess those values are being eroded in other ways right now, so who knows how this will go.

I’m not personally in favour of draconian/authoritarian measures, even if they are supposedly for the overall good. I don’t think ‘the end justifies the means’ is a particularly British value either, and can’t see how it would play culturally here. But then, I guess those values are being eroded in other ways right now, so who knows how this will go.

I think that popularism is the cause of many of our current problems rather than "authoritarian" measures. People are quick to dismiss the opinions of experts and assume that they know better despite little background knowledge and research limited to a quick google search.

I'm absolutely pro vaccination and think anti-vaxxers are loons. But I too am uneasy at the idea of outright legally compelling people to do it. I think measures should be taken to make it extremely inconvenient for people not to - such as by denying access to school etc. It shouldn't be benefits-related, as that is patently unfairly targeting low-earners and vulnerable people while letting the wealthier people do as they please.

This feels uncomfortable because most people are not this authoritarian by nature.
Its particularly galling from a Govt that has slashed healthcare and access to GP's and clinics.

I think measures should be taken to make it extremely inconvenient for people not to - such as by denying access to school etc

But if you limit (deny) access to school you are punishing the children not the parents.

I favour the child benefit limits to two children but people often say on here that I am punishing the children not the parents who decided to have a 3rd child knowing they would not receive child benefit. You can't have it both ways.

Unfortunately children are victims of their parents. This is the same for anything. Parents force religion and their own brand of ethics into the children they produce. It's down to those children to grow out from under their parents.

The Australian “no jab, no play” policy hasn’t banned unvaccinated children from attending school though. Child care centres were given the option of not enrolling unvaccinated children but I don’t think many opted for that. The main hit was financial - there’re government subsidies for families who work whose children attend child care, irrespective of income. Non-vaccinators aren’t eligible for some of these financial rebates. For many families those rebates are the difference between being able to afford child care and not.

My impression is that vaccinations have increased in those groups who have missed vaccines due to inertia or disorganisation but the hard-core anti-vaxx group haven’t changed. It’s very hard to get a medical exemption as well and limited to proven anaphylaxis, not just large local reactions or whatever.

The Australian “no jab, no play” policy hasn’t banned unvaccinated children from attending school though.

Same with the Italian system that was mentioned earlier. Children under 6 can’t go to state nursery, but they are not banned from school. The parents of unvaccinated children starting school are fined. That’s not going to persuade ardent anti vaxxers to change their mind.

You very much suggested it.

I didn’t actually. Perhaps your grasp of politics is a bit on the simple side.

Its particularly galling from a Govt that has slashed healthcare and access to GP's and clinics.

Absolutely this!

Slashing HV clinics, surestart centres, and the mismanagement of the NHS leading to the current crisis in GP recruitment and retention has massively impacted on the very people that families concerned about vaccinations, or disorganised, or uninformed about schedules etc would turned too, or be scooped up by.

Considering that in many places you can only get an appointment at a clinic on the 4th Tuesday of every odd month between 2pm and 2.12pm it’s actually quite surprising that numbers have regained their pre-Wakefield level rather than drop again through sheer lack of access.

Locally there have been a few measles cases in one of the Christian private schools (more actively religious than most) and the school banned unvaccinated children, unvaccinated teachers and pregnant teachers from the school until the infectious period passed. No one seemed to object too much.

Slashing HV clinics, surestart centres, and the mismanagement of the NHS leading to the current crisis in GP recruitment and retention has massively impacted on the very people that families concerned about vaccinations, or disorganised, or uninformed about schedules etc would turned too, or be scooped up by.

This is a good point. And a vaccine-hesitancy can reduce when parents trust their HCP and can actually ask questions about vaccines. But they need to actually have the opportunity to ask those questions. Opinions and so-called fixed beliefs can evolve.