Thoughts on mandatory vaccination?

[IllGetTheNextRound]

I'm a healthcare professional and I've heard from both colleagues and patients that vaccinations should be mandatory.

This to me is concerning for a few reasons. One of the main reasons is that I think as a public health policy this is really problematic because we are mandating a healthcare intervention on an individual level which takes away their autonomy. And what about children? Compared to many other countries our vaccination uptake is generally excellent. Indeed there is definitely room for improvement, but I worry that mandating this would deter people who otherwise would consider it.

Having said that I'm very pro vaccination and I want as many people to be vaccinated as possible. I have educated many patients and advocated for greater uptake of childhood vaccinations.

If you're passionate about one side of the debate I'd love to hear your thoughts.

What's the difference @custardcreme ? If it's mandatory but people don't have it what do you do then? Very slippery slope as PP have well explained above

Pro vaccination
Think everyone should want to have it but against making it mandatory.
I support vaccination passports and requirement to be vaccinated for travel, events indoors etc

Smallpox is a totally different disease, vaccine and in a different historical context.

I think it isn't relevant to the current pandemic.

Here's a Twitter thread exposing the lies in Kingsnorth's article linked to by pp.
That would be Kingsnorth the former environmentalist (who now isn't), the former atheist (who then went on to be a Buddhist and various other things and is now Christian) and, well, various other things that he was, then wasn't, then was again.
He's known as Hokey Cokey Kingsnorth not without reason. He's in, he's out, he shakes it all about.

mobile.twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1463770425129906178

Absolutely against it everyone has the right to decide about vwhat happens with their own body start mandatory vaccination it's downhill from there and dangerous

Against - not just because it should be down to an individual what they put in their bodies but because it automatically assumes everyone lives the same lifestyle. I am at very low risk of catching Covid because I have very little contact with other people. I work in an office on my own, live on my own, no contact with school age children (or any children come to that!) or caring duties for elderly relatives, hate crowded places so avoid shops unless its the supermarket and quiet, don't go abroad for holidays or to gigs, concerts, theatres as I can't afford it. Don't go out to eat or to pubs for the same reason. Yes my life is dull but its my life right now!

Whether I get the vaccination or not should be my choice in the same way a smoker chooses nicotine or drinkers choose alcohol or drug users choose whatever they choose to poison themselves! I don't want to put anything 'alien' into my body right now as it has enough to deal with coping with peri menopause and stress.

@Cariah

Oops posted too soon! Your right to swing your arm ends when your fist hits my face. And your right to refuse a vaccine ends when that causes a spread of disease that negatively affects me. People can’t be permitted to do what they want if it hurts others.

How do people feel about this from the Lancet?

www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/fulltext?s=08#%20

It is saying that vaccinated people and transmission is a problem that is becoming more apparent - i.e. being vaccinated does not slow down the pandemic.

I am against it therefore in two ways - firstly because it is not going to achieve anything spectacular, and secondly because Nuremberg Code which states:

"1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision."

Mandatory vaccines breach this code, and I think it is totally foolish to be even stepping into that territory

This.
(Also love the swinging arm analogy and will pinch it brew)

It's a silly analogy and you know it @PAFMO! If we turn it around the other way, your right to force someone else to have a vaccine they don't want could (in very rare circumstances) harm them when they have a bad reaction to it. Why should you get to take this decision on their behalf & will you be emptying your pockets to pay them or their family damages when it goes wrong?

Especially when the pharmaceutical companies are protected and no legal claim can be bought against them.

@Cariah

Oops posted too soon! Your right to swing your arm ends when your fist hits my face. And your right to refuse a vaccine ends when that causes a spread of disease that negatively affects me. People can’t be permitted to do what they want if it hurts others.

Absolutely rubbish comparison. You have absolutely no right to dictate what someone else puts in THEIR own body. It does not affect you. If you have been vaccinated then you have nothing to fear. Unless you are about to contradict yourself and witter on about still being able to get seriously ill in which case vaccination is pointless then isn’t it? For the record I am very pro vaccination but this attitude disgusts me and thankfully even this Governments isn’t stupid enough to attempt it. Go move to Austria if this is what you want.

@theworldsgonefeckingmad

What's the difference *@custardcreme* ? If it's mandatory but people don't have it what do you do then? Very slippery slope as PP have well explained above

A slippery slope that we’ve been on since 1853, as I pointed out.

@Beachcomber

Smallpox is a totally different disease, vaccine and in a different historical context.

I think it isn't relevant to the current pandemic.

Isn’t it about the principle?

I agree with @GreenWhiteViolet. I do wish more people would think of not just themselves but the vulnerable in society though.

If it was mandatory, how do suggest vaccinatin someone who's anxious to the point of hysterics. I've asked DS 10 if he'll have the vaccine when it's available for him, he said maybe. He wants to protect his older brother, who'll die if he even catches a mild form, but in reality I think he'd have a meltdown and it would be impossible to vaccinate him.

Historian here! The comparison with smallpox is a very superficial one. It was a much more deadly disease, and the timeline is also extremely different.

1796 - smallpox vaccine developed
1840 - vaccine made available to people for free
1853 - first legislation mandating it for infants. This wasn't really enforced.
1867 - change in legislation, stronger enforcement

It was very unpopular (despite smallpox being such an awful disease) and in the 1890s a conscience clause was added allowing parents to decline it.

It was a very well-established vaccine and the law only applied to babies, not adults. An issue of parental rights/choice, really. Not comparable to new boosters every 6 (3?) months for everyone. A later 19th century government decided that universal compulsion, with fines for noncompliance, was a bad idea. I don't think 'but the Victorians did it, there's precedent!' is a good argument here.

I am strongly against mandatory vaccination. It isn't 100% effective and it's not 100% safe so there's no justification.

If people need to be coerced, the government has lost the argument and needs to try harder.

My dentist said that she had to have a hepatitis vaccination before she could do her job, as does my doctor sister, so why is this different? Of course there should be exceptions for medical reasons, but I think we require a lot of things (vaccinations against polio and other diseases to enter certain countries, seat belts in cars) in order to do certain activities, and I don't see how this is different.

I don’t think the comparison is irrelevant or uninteresting. The Austrians were early with the smallpox vaccination, and there was enormous resistance for the same reasons as today. People worried about the risks, or it not being effective, they preferred to rely on their immune systems or natural treatments.

There is certainly precedent for vaccine mandates, all around the world, whatever the details are. And if the problem with a particular vaccine - because it’s too new, or whatever - then the objection isn’t one of principle/bodily autonomy etc.

If we’re objecting in principle and defending our right to refuse, then the details of the vaccine are immaterial - the individual defends the right to say no, for whatever reason.

Your right to swing your arm ends when your fist hits my face. And your right to refuse a vaccine ends when that causes a spread of disease that negatively affects me

You are asking someone else to take a medical intervention, which is not risk free, to protect you. You have no right to ask that of anyone.

You are also not displaying a lot of confidence in your own vaccine.

@maofteens

My dentist said that she had to have a hepatitis vaccination before she could do her job, as does my doctor sister, so why is this different? Of course there should be exceptions for medical reasons, but I think we require a lot of things (vaccinations against polio and other diseases to enter certain countries, seat belts in cars) in order to do certain activities, and I don't see how this is different.

Because the vaccines are very new. Because the boosters aren’t even the same vaccine but a different one. Because they are being teamed with flu jabs which are in most cases unnecessary. No one knows yet what the long term effects on the immune system will be.

@MaxNormal @TheElvishQueen I agree with both your comments above.

Are you a journalist OP? Because if you weren't posting for the first time you would have seen the trillions of other threads on this.

I'm passionately opposed to the idea, of any mandatory medical intervention.
I'd go so far as to describe it as abusive.
It's such a dangerous idea, and who knows where it could lead. Scary thought!

I'm pro vaccine and pro people having the right to choose whether to take it or not.

I think restrictions to only have vaccinated people work with very vulnerable elderly or immune compromised are unfortunately necessary to protect the most vulnerable. Extending that additional protection out to anyone at a restaurant or in school is a step too far. Workplaces and classes who have someone immune compromised should take the time for a discussion about why others having the vaccine gives protection for that person; the reality of "it's about protecting Sue" will often be more impactful than general effectiveness statements.

What GreenWhiteViolet said so eloquently upthread. ^ I could not put it better.