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

I do somewhat feel that the bodily autonomy argument is somewhat flawed. Very young children do not have, by definition, bodily autonomy. Their parents make their decisions and in medical issues that decision can and is taken from them if they are making decisions detrimental to their child's health.

Yes it is rare but doctors can and do override parents when it is to save a child's life. So why exactly is vaccinating all that different? Just because it is preventative rather than reactive to illness? And it also is to be preventative for society as well as that individual child.

There are also more stories coming out from teens that have decided to vaccinate themselves at a later age because they strongly disagree with the decision their parent made to not have them vaccinated.

I am definitely for this. I don't think that children should suffer potentially life altering or threatening diseases because either their own or another parent has stupidly decided not to vaccinate.

There are also more stories coming out from teens that have decided to vaccinate themselves at a later age because they strongly disagree with the decision their parent made to not have them vaccinated.

Yes, many of the teens that missed out on the vaccinations as toddlers are now being vaccinated. There is a campaign to inform them that they are eligible as many are now university age and vulnerable.

No, I think it's a fucking awful idea and I'm surprised it has so many supporters. I can only imagine people are just taking this at face value regarding the vaccine rather than realising what the bigger picture is.

The teens choosing to be vaccinated is a prime example of how education works. Having seen the posters, non patronising information and the likes I’m quite baffled why the same style isn’t used on parents, rather than persisting with “don’t be stupid” when educating obviously works.

No, I think it's a fucking awful idea and I'm surprised it has so many supporters. I can only imagine people are just taking this at face value regarding the vaccine rather than realising what the bigger picture is.

Why is it an "awful idea"? As for the "bigger picture" you could say that about those who think it an awful idea.

But would support a policy (like Australia) of reducing/cancelling family benefits for unimmunised DC, unless valid exemption certificate

That's a bit let's bash the poor. Not every family in the UK receive benefits.

I started thinking yes it should be compulsory but actually its a slippery slope, esp when you think of things like Flu & Chicken pox vaccines. Not so sure I'd like them to become compulsory.

So I guess education is key. Current crop of parents are a generation or two away from seeing measles or having friends who've had whooping cough etc. And probably even further removed from things like diphtheria and polo.

So an education campaign on what these dieases actally do and the risks of death, disability, and risks of the drugs used to treat for each of them.

I am pro vaccination but i think it's a bad idea. You cannot force people to put things into their bodies rhey ate not happy wity. It is a pain for the immunocompromised who have to be extra careful but i would hope that they and/ or their parents would take precautions. I think education and guilt tripping are the way foward!

I'd fully support this! One of my dc has cancer and couldn't have some of her jabs until she was in remission and 6 months after her last chemo. She couldn't be around anyone with a cold etc I was petrified of not knowing if people were vax etc. My ex sil wouldn't vax her child and couldn't understand the risks, which meant my dc didn't see her cousin the whole time!
It's so important to be vaccinated. You never know who can't be due to health reasons and we as a society have to protect them.

The teens choosing to be vaccinated is a prime example of how education works. Having seen the posters, non patronising information and the likes I’m quite baffled why the same style isn’t used on parents, rather than persisting with “don’t be stupid” when educating obviously works.

Why do you think they are receiving a different style of education? Perhaps the teenagers are just able to better evaluate the information than their parents and not be taken in by the bullshit spouted by the antivaxxers.

rainbowscalling

It’s to do with proportionality and the duty of the State to intervene in the interests of the individual child. A child who will die without a treatment needs urgent assistance. That doesn’t necessarily mean the State is right, by the way. There are cases where the parents have won legal battles to decide on their child’s treatment. But in a case of dispute about vaccination, we are talking about - usually - healthy children (removing from the equation children who might be harmed further by vaccination) and preventative treatment against illnesses that almost always pass without serious harm or longer term harm. So removal and compulsion aren’t proportionate.

Introduce the herd immunity argument and everyone suddenly goes, “Oh, well, naturally the Government should intervene.” But actually there is no statutory basis or ethical basis for forcing medical treatment on one person that they currently do not need to protect or cure another person.

I used to think it was a good idea but I don't want to live somewhere that overrules your right to decide treatment for yourself and by extension, your children. Education should be sufficient to encourage herd immunity but unfortunately, the education we have regarding vaccines is insufficient. For example, my pro vaccine friend was arguing the other day that people never have (serious) adverse reactions from vaccines which is completely untrue. What people don't get from vaccines is autism. You could have an allergic reaction or an adverse reaction that could leave you in hospital. That is a risk you assume when you're injected with anything.

If someone vehemently argues with an anti Vaxxer that nobody ends up harmed by vaccines then they'll just dismiss your views as ignorant. Very, very, very few people end up with serious illness due to vaccination but it does happen.

I'm pro vaccine but mandatory vaccinations are too big brother for me. Typical Tories bulldozing rather than seeking to understand the issues and supporting education.

I started thinking yes it should be compulsory but actually its a slippery slope, esp when you think of things like Flu & Chicken pox vaccines. Not so sure I'd like them to become compulsory.

The flu vaccination won't be compulsory as people who are immuno compromised can be vaccinated anyway. The chicken pox vaccine isn't available on the NHS at the moment so that wouldn't be a problem in the UK either.

I used to think it was a good idea but I don't want to live somewhere that overrules your right to decide treatment for yourself and by extension, your children.

We already live in that country though. Although adults can decide what medical treatment they receive they don't have the right to decide their children won't receive treatment.

For me, this is a case of competing rights.

I support bodily integrity. I would not support any policy of true compulsory vaccination.

However there comes a point where the rights to access state services come into conflict. An unvaccinated healthy child whose parents have exercised bodily autonomy on their behalf wants to access state education. So does an immunocompromised child, whose ability to access that education may be reduced or removed because of the risk posed by unvaccinated children.

So the question is who should be prioritised in accessing that service? The child who could be vaccinated at no greater (very small) risk than the vast majority of children. Or the child who does not have the choice.

As a PP said, an outbreak can start at Disneyland, or in a plane. An immunocompromised child can avoid those places.

In an already restricted life their parents are currently forced to choose whether to also avoid school for their child’s safety.

I do not support forced vaccination. I support the right of parents not to vaccinate, and their right to hold any opinion they wish, regardless of how little respect that opinion deserves.

I do not think that right should be limitless or consequence-free. Where their choice, as a person who has options for their children, takes away the choice of a parent who doesn’t have those options, I come down on the side of the second parent and child.

Why do you think they are receiving a different style of education? Perhaps the teenagers are just able to better evaluate the information than their parents and not be taken in by the bullshit spouted by the antivaxxers.

Because I’ve seen and heard the difference in the way people are spoken too - DS asked a question at uni about number of people damaged by vaccinations and got a polite and considered response. A mum at baby group asked a very simple question and got told “scare stories are rubbish, don’t be silly”. The tone is very very different

@woodchuck

No we don't. We live somewhere you can insist in birthing at home after 4 caesareans if you so felt inclined. It wasn't until pregnancy that I realised just how much medical power we hold compared to other countries.

Eg, DD was recommended antibiotics after birth as I had some factors that made her high risk for infection. They asked me. They didn't tell me they are giving it to her. They asked me if it was okay and told me why they recommend it. In other countries, they'd just be given even if it was preventative rather than treatment like it was in her case. I didn't understand the question at first because I thought we didn't really have a choice. And no, refusing at that point wouldn't have been escalated at all, they'd just have recommended close observation.

In the event of life and death where someone is refusing treatment, they may escalate it to court but only in cases where the chance of survival/full recovery outweighs other outcomes. There are young people dying all the time from conditions where there is still a chance of survival +/- long term health issues. They died because their parents made the decision with their medical team to withdraw treatment instead of continuing with distressing procedures and a poor quality of life.

Because I’ve seen and heard the difference in the way people are spoken too - DS asked a question at uni about number of people damaged by vaccinations and got a polite and considered response. A mum at baby group asked a very simple question and got told “scare stories are rubbish, don’t be silly”. The tone is very very different

That is anecedotal evidence. You can't extrapolate what you heard on two occasions to what is happening to everyone in the entire country. Your DS probably asked someone who is part of the group campaigning to increase vaccination among young adults who have been denied it by their parents and as they are so young it is understandable that they know little about it. Who did the young mum at the baby group ask the question to. A healthcare professional. If so then they should have given a better response but you can't decide that everyone else is getting the same response.

I am not an anti-vaxxer so I hesitate to use the term “pro-vaxxer”, but do the people strongly advocating compulsion really see no issue with the Government legislating that you have to put drugs into your child’s natural body, the one they were born with, and that, by not altering your child’s natural body in a specific way, you are responsible for the deaths of other children, if and when they contract a naturally occurring virus?

I can understand this and I can see the other side.

I don't agree with forcing people to vaccinate but I do think limiting school places and possibly doing something with benefits, no taking money away but fully vaccinated children's parents given some sort of bonus. If it was linked to education the maybe a free school uniform at 5 and then again at 11.

But there needs to be no opt out for religious reasons,in the USA any parent can claim a religious exemption.

And there also needs to be a process to appeal if you have valid reasons for not vaccinating or for a different schedule eg a child who has had a reaction or a child whose sibling has had a reaction.

I think o the education and 'research' parents do something needs to be taught in schools and that is to look at all views and weight them according to who is saying things (experience,education etc).

People who are researching (from either side) tend to start from that point of view and then search for others with the same point of view.

Trying to disprove your point of view is actually a good way to research.

No we don't. We live somewhere you can insist in birthing at home after 4 caesareans if you so felt inclined. It wasn't until pregnancy that I realised just how much medical power we hold compared to other countries.

That's because in this country if you are only pregnant you are effectively just making decisions for your own body (the baby doesn't count as a person until they are born) so of course you have the right to choose what medical treatment you have,.

Why is it an "awful idea"?

Because of the control aspect. What's next?

As for the "bigger picture" you could say that about those who think it an awful idea.

You could indeed. However I said it in reference to the Tory party making vaccinations compulsory.

One of the things anti vaxxers say about pro vaxxers is that they deny any risks of vaccines and I have to say I've found that to be true.

Eg, DD was recommended antibiotics after birth as I had some factors that made her high risk for infection. They asked me. They didn't tell me they are giving it to her. They asked me if it was okay and told me why they recommend it. In other countries, they'd just be given even if it was preventative rather than treatment like it was in her case. I didn't understand the question at first because I thought we didn't really have a choice. And no, refusing at that point wouldn't have been escalated at all, they'd just have recommended close observation.

If she had got really ill as a consequence they would have got a judge to overrule you though.

sashh

I have a problem with punishing people (children) for making choices that are theirs to make. If the right to decide on medical treatment is based in sound ethics (and I think it is) there should be no consequence for exercising it. I also have a problem for incentivising people to accept medical treatment for their child (although I understand why it would initially seem like a good idea). What happens when a vaccination comes along that does have unknown harmful side effects? The Government has sent the message, through incentivising you to take it, that it is thoroughly endorsed and totally harmless. Then you find out it’s actually got a significant risk of X, and lots of children are now living with the damage.

Medical choice must be freely exercised and advice given by healthcare professionals must be impartial.

@woodchuck99

You can also decide whether your baby has vitamin K, the 5 day blood spot test, hearing tests, whether you give a prescribed medication. All of these things. What you can't do is let your child become seriously unwell and not seek medical treatment.