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

Well that sarcasm and emoji effectively summed up how little I think of the idea of taking away bodily autonomy.

However, you've asked, so I'll answer. I do not think it is a good idea- I think its the thin end of a wedge. Consenting to and not consenting to medical treatment and procedures is an intrinsic part of our autonomy.

I'm not going down the pro vax/anti vax rabbit hole as its been done to death, but a blanket government policy over people's bodies is not a good idea.

Its only very recently in Ireland that women are allowed access to abortions that didn't have to pass the most rigid of scrutiny (1st January this year), hell, its not so long ago they werent allowed to leave the country to access them. Whilst the rights of the unborn and the mother had equal rights to life (theoretically) in the Constitution it did not play out that way. How many women do you think suffered as a result of a blanket government policy- because every single woman from the second she became pregnant lacked any form of bodily autonomy.

Jehovah's witnesses? You need a court order to force a transfusion for a child due to the parents' beliefs- would you take that choice away from them too?

As adults we enjoy the right to refuse treatment, as parents we do what we believe to be right for our children and that is generally an echo of what we would choose for ourselves, so in effect passing on the degree of autonomy we would want for ourselves to our children.

You're suggesting that foisting a mass policy that eradicates bodily autonomy and quashes the rights of parents to make choices that they believe to be correct is a good thing. I do not agree.

I can’t see why that right shouldn’t also protect my children.

I would argue that it's because that choice, unlike a decision about cancer treatment or birth choices for example, could have a very serious, negative effect on other vulnerable people around you. Much like you can't smoke in an enclosed public space because it's a danger to others.

My DS is immunocompromised due to having a liver transplant as a baby, he has just started school and one of the scariest things is not knowing whether he's protected by his 'herd' from illnesses we cannot otherwise give him protection from. For what it's worth, he has had every vaccination that he is allowed to have, but he cannot have the MMR (amongst others). We're not allowed to know if he is at risk through anyone not being vaxxed and it is frightening. I would be for this, obviously.

I am pro vaccination (my dc are vaccinated) but I dont think this is the right way to go.

If we lose autonomy then whilst it might start with something I agree with but what dark road could it lead us down?

I don’t agree with the “punish the poor” punitive measures proposed here to cut family benefits. Malnutrition and homelessness are much quicker and surer way to kill a child than skipping vaccines. You cut benefits which are need based and provide no excess for luxury...you are causing hunger and inadequate housing...parents already choose between heat or food WITH benefits.
It’s duress. It’s saying vaccinate your child or watch them starve. I’m sorry but to me that is a immoral method and the end does not justify such means.

HollyGoLoudly1

Society has the right to legislate about smoking to protect the public because that doesn’t compromise bodily autonomy. This does. It’s apples and oranges.

@BananasAreTheSourceOfEvil

Fair enough argument. Always good to hear other views.

Smoking is a choice to introduce something potentially harmful in to your body with the side effect of it harming others in the immediate vicinity.
Vaccination is the choice to introduce something potentially harmful in to your body with the side effect of presumably prtotecting others in your immediate vicinity.
The premise of your analogy and comparison is therefore illogical.

This isnt about vaccines it’s about state control of individuals- the first step towards totalitarianism.

Nonsense. You can't successfully eradicate any disease through immunisation without some state involvement given the herd immunity threshold, so if you agree with vaccines you have to accept state intervention.

We already have major state/quango vaccination programmes in every country, having zero correlation with totalitarian or authoritarian governments.

No one who actually understands the horrors of polio (for example) would prioritise the freedom to not vaccinate over this proscribed/limited intervention.

Definitely the right thing to do. Other children shouldn’t be put at risk for the selfishness of others. Parents may not care they are playing Russian Roulette with their own children’s health but they shouldn’t be able to put other children at risk whilst doing so.

As adults we enjoy the right to refuse treatment,

Unless you are certifiably insane. So, maybe the antivaccine thing could be added to the DSM as a type of Anxiety Disorder? So, we catch, vaccinate, and release. Is being antivaccine a type of mental illness?

They have recently added “climate anxiety” as one.....so...what’s so different about “vaccine anxiety”???

@seaweedandmarchingbands

Yeah I accept it's not a great comparison. The replies are definitely making me think about why I feel so strongly about it. I guess I maybe don't agree that body autonomy in this specific issue is more important than protecting people from serious diseases. Everyone will have their own line in the sand, for me it's just not as important as the return of measles etc.

A severely vaccine injured child is not simply accepted collateral damage in the quest for herd immunity. Not if its your child, not really.

This with bells on.

I could only support this if parents with concerns/family history/completely baseless paranoia/whatever were offered some kind of pre-vacc tests.

'I'd guess parents with kids who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons will find they have to HE instead.

I wouldn't be for that at all, I'm assuming there will be exemptions for certain cases and they will be protected by herd immunity.'

You missed the opening 'as things stand...' - yes, of course there would be medical exemptions. My point is that now, with too many unvaccinated kids in schools, parents may be having to HE kids who can't be vaccinated.
DDs primary had an immunocompromised boy, I didn't hear any complaints from other parents when we were sent letters telling us to make sure our kids vaccinations were all up to date, and to keep them off school if they might have been exposed to chickenpox. We're not in an area where antivaxxing was much of a thing, fortunately.

Yes. And I bloody hate the Tories.

The problem is your stereotype anti vaxxer will home educate and teach their kids to believe everything on the internet.

Can vaccines be improved to reduce the risk of vaccine damage? I'm no scientist, I have no idea how they work tbh. But the first vaccine damaged child whose parents didn't want to vaccinate would be all over the news.

It is about social contract.

I am completely in favour of this. Society is too integrated to allow people to make exceptions on this.

A severely vaccine injured child is not simply accepted collateral damage in the quest for herd immunity. Not if its your child, not really.

Is a measles-damaged (or dead) child acceptable collateral damage for your quest for bodily autonomy though?

It all sounds a bit conspiracy theory like to me to say it's the first step towards the government trying to increase control over us etc. Maybe they realise that educating people hasn't worked, the anti vax movement is increasing, and they are trying to find a practical workable solution that has been effective in other countries with similar culture to ours, to stop people (mainly babies) dying.

There have been lots of posts about herd immunity etc but let's not forget that on the balance of probability, being vaccinated is positive for the individual being vaccinated as well. I.doubt in practice that many people will home educate, most will suck it up and vaccinate. Having a vaccination against your wishes is better then dying of measles for that child. The chances of vaccine damage are 1 in 1 million and the chances of dying of measles is between 1 in 5 and 10000 and the chances of hospitalization and life long consequences eg deafness 1 in 15. I dont understand how anyone can argue against those odds.

A PP said that the government cant force it because not vaccinating wont automatically do you harm (whereas neglect like starvation would automatically do you harm and is legislated against). However the government do intervene for things like seatbelts- not wearing one doesnt mean you will automatically crash or be hurt. But there is legislation to ensure everyone wears them even though some people believe they are useless or harmful in some cases

Also is this all vaccines and whenever they suggest extra should be given

When there was a measles outbreak in south wales my youngest was in the age group who they recommended had an extra dose (basically he had had the first but wasn't old enough for the second) - then I found out that he would need a third at the same time as the second should have been because 'they are spaced that far apart for a reason to ensure effectiveness' - so in which case why have the extra in the middle?

Is there a reliable means of knowing, empirically, in advance, if your child is at elevated risk of vaccine damage?

If so, then it seems pretty straightforward.

A lot of people are simply misinformed/seeking a chemical-free existence.

@HollyGoLoudly1 Hopefully they will introduce mandatory flu vaccines annually for adults too.

If vaccines are compulsory then should abortion be banned?

We can't pick and choose bodily autonomy.
It's a slippery slope.

Also to all those talking about immunocompromised ones, during cancer treatment my mum was more at risk from the children in our family shedding their vaccine then those who hadn't had one.

The nasal spray given at school is one example of such a vaccine.

I can't think of a Tory policy that comes close to be honest . Yanbu. I hope this one passes.

And no way should flu vaccine be compulsory. Lots of health professionals disagree on its use.