Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    This would require schools to have access to your medical records; what about privacy?

    And as education is (wrongly, in my view) compulsory, how will this work?

    If schools refuse people and people refuse to be vaccinated, they cannot be educated?

    The idea that the state could force someone to be injected with something against their will is positively Orwellian.
    it would work by children being given a certificate saying they have been vaccinated.
    why should children from responsible families be punished by exposure to diseases from feckless ones ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    it would work by children being given a certificate saying they have been vaccinated.
    why should children from responsible families be punished by exposure to diseases from feckless ones ?
    Why would they be exposed if they are vaccinated? Why would it matter?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely no way. Destroy the liberty of the individual and you set a dangerous, dangerous precedent.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannydoy)
    Why would they be exposed if they are vaccinated? Why would it matter?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    vaccinations do not offer 100% protection against disease. Only non-exposure is 100% effective.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Inquisitive)
    Absolutely no way. Destroy the liberty of the individual and you set a dangerous, dangerous precedent.
    We aren't talking about the individual - there is no national adult vaccination program. We're talking about children, and we already take children away from parents who refuse to do what is in their child's best interests medically e.g. if they refused to treat diabetes. Compulsory vaccinations set no greater precedent than is already in place.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    We aren't talking about the individual - there is no national adult vaccination program. We're talking about children, and we already take children away from parents who refuse to do what is in their child's best interests medically e.g. if they refused to treat diabetes. Compulsory vaccinations set no greater precedent than is already in place.
    We'd take the children away because their parents are inflicting harm (not attending to their medical needs). The solution to that isn't to introduce draconian legislation that absolves parents of their personal responsibility, IMO. Like you've said, if we have provisions in place to prevent harm, why do we need to take it further?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Inquisitive)
    We'd take the children away because their parents are inflicting harm (not attending to their medical needs).
    You could easily argue that vaccinations are pretty basic "medical needs". Its exactly the same thing.

    Like you've said, if we have provisions in place to prevent harm, why do we need to take it further?
    I have no idea what you are saying here. Why should we ensure that children are protected against multiple potentially lethal diseases? Surely that is obvious? Treatment is no substitute for prevention.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    I think they should be compulsory through schools yes. I think not vaccinating your child is akin to abuse in many ways tbh.



    Which in all circumstances would be deferring to expert opinion, surely?
    Up to what age? I refused the cervical cancer jab at 14 through my own doing, it was nothing to do with my parents. I don't think that's fair, some people don't believe in certain types of things it shouldn't be compulsary. I'm not a fan of vaccines but I'd never enforce that on anyone else, so why should it be forced on me? Or be forced to treat my child in a way I don't agree with?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    Up to what age? I refused the cervical cancer jab at 14 through my own doing, it was nothing to do with my parents.
    Yeah if you're assessed to have capacity you can do what's right by you - there's very little disputing that.

    I don't think that's fair, some people don't believe in certain types of things it shouldn't be compulsary. I'm not a fan of vaccines but I'd never enforce that on anyone else, so why should it be forced on me? Or be forced to treat my child in a way I don't agree with?
    The law obliges us to treat children in their best interests. The example i used above is that if a mother refused to give her diabetic child insulin because she "didn't believe in certain types of things", her child would be taken away from her without a second thought.

    Now that's a far more extreme case than not vaccinating your children (in the modern day at least, now that vaccines have been so successful at eradicating diseases...), but the same principles apply. Vaccinations are clearly beneficial and still save many lives each year. Not vaccinating your children harms them, and others by not establishing herd immunity, fact.

    Now you may not believe in the scientific method, or evidence, and you can do what you want to yourself. Should you be allowed to harm your child, and everyone else's children, on those pretences though? I don't think so.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Yeah if you're assessed to have capacity you can do what's right by you - there's very little disputing that.
    Fair play, I thought you were suggesting up to 16 or something.



    The law obliges us to treat children in their best interests. The example i used above is that if a mother refused to give her diabetic child insulin because she "didn't believe in certain types of things", her child would be taken away from her without a second thought.

    Now that's a far more extreme case than not vaccinating your children (in the modern day at least, now that vaccines have been so successful at eradicating diseases...), but the same principles apply. Vaccinations are clearly beneficial and still save many lives each year. Not vaccinating your children harms them, and others by not establishing herd immunity, fact.

    Now you may not believe in the scientific method, or evidence, and you can do what you want to yourself. Should you be allowed to harm your child, and everyone else's children, on those pretences though? I don't think so.
    A diabetic child will definitely die without insulin. Will a child definitely die without a vaccine? No. Will a child definitely not die when having a vaccine? No.

    It's not that I don't believe in the scientific method, I just think there are some questionable things in vaccines and that they aren't necessary. I think there should be freedom of choice for all. Me not having a vaccine doesn't stop anyone else from having one. By making it compulsary, you do take away my freedom of choice. The state doesn't own my child, and cannot tell me how to bring it up. That's getting into totalitarianism really.

    Also I bring the example of Jehovah's Witness here. If a parent of a child refuses a blood transfusion for their child and they are Jehovah's Witness, they can't be forced to have one. Kids have died before because of this. Yet the law respects their belief. I don't see why that should be respected and not mine?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Olympiad)
    Don't think it should be compulsory - at the end of the day, it is in fact out body thus we should be able to decide what to do. Hopefully, the decision is a well researched and thought about one, therefore the person will be aware of why they are making their decision - to either say no or yes. Similarly, all medical matters should be a choice.


    USING THE TSR APP
    But the odds are it won't be. The amount of false information out there about vaccinations is staggering. People won't go and ask their doctor they will go on google and read dodgy studies about MMR that have been discredited or go to flawed websites that peddle false information, putting themselves and in many cases their children at risk too.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    NO

    It should be a personal choice.
    Especially if the vaccine hasn't been proven totally safe
    The MMR jabs were proved safe. The link with autism was disproven long ago.

    I understand your viewpoints relating to choice though. But where does that choice leave you if it impacts on others?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    No they should not be compulsory for all as some have very valid reasons for not having them, there should be opt outs for medical reasons. When I had the meningitis C vaccine it caused me to go into anaphylactic shock and I ended up in hospital. The same reaction occurred with the combined tetanus diphtheria vaccine. I've now been advised not to have any further vaccinations as they've been unable to identify what in the vaccines is causing the reaction and thus it's best not to put me at any further risk.

    I don't believe in the MMR causing autism nonsense which was disproved long ago however I do have first hand experience of serious complications so can understand why some would need to be exempt from compulsory vaccination schemes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No. Giving the state the right to decide what goes into your body is chilling. Even if it could be proven that all vaccines are 100% safe and all future vaccines will be 100% safe, it is still an infringement of fundamental rights.

    On top of this, we have no idea what future vaccines are going to come out and whether they will be safe. The medical profession is not above mistakes - remember Thalidomide? The drug that women were encouraged to take to alleviate morning sickness that then gave their children terrible birth defects.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    Fair play, I thought you were suggesting up to 16 or something.





    A diabetic child will definitely die without insulin. Will a child definitely die without a vaccine? No. Will a child definitely not die when having a vaccine? No.

    It's not that I don't believe in the scientific method, I just think there are some questionable things in vaccines and that they aren't necessary. I think there should be freedom of choice for all. Me not having a vaccine doesn't stop anyone else from having one. By making it compulsary, you do take away my freedom of choice. The state doesn't own my child, and cannot tell me how to bring it up. That's getting into totalitarianism really.

    Also I bring the example of Jehovah's Witness here. If a parent of a child refuses a blood transfusion for their child and they are Jehovah's Witness, they can't be forced to have one. Kids have died before because of this. Yet the law respects their belief. I don't see why that should be respected and not mine?
    Will a child definitely not die if given insulin? No. It's not just a case of deaths. Being unvaccinated significantly increases your risk of an infection and that in turn can lead to other complications like pneumonia and ear infections which can lead to deafness. It's the responsibility of the parent to ensure that their child is adequately protected. It's also important to consider the impact of their decision on society as a whole. Through their choice, which is often based on little evidence, they are impeding the eradication of the disease and making their child pose a greater danger to others.

    If that's your argument then I guess you'll be ok with the parent having complete control over their child, even when they don't have their best interests in mind? If the child has cancer and the parent refuses chemotherapy, you'd find it unacceptable to force the child to have it regardless? What if they have a form of cancer which is easily treatable but the parent still refuses?

    Doctors can force the child of a JW to have a blood transfusion if their condition is life-threatening and it is deemed that the parent doesn't have the child's best interests in mind. Where is your source that they can't?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    Also I bring the example of Jehovah's Witness here. If a parent of a child refuses a blood transfusion for their child and they are Jehovah's Witness, they can't be forced to have one. Kids have died before because of this. Yet the law respects their belief. I don't see why that should be respected and not mine?
    Nope. The hospital can and will if there is time, go to court to make the child a ward of the court and give that child the treatment it needs to keep it alive regardless of their parents beliefs, the exception would be if that child was assessed to be Gillick competent and was refusing the treatment.

    As for vaccinations, I don't think they should be compulsory, the arrangement we have at the moment where most people are supplied with the evidence that vaccinations work in eradicating what were previously fatal childhood diseases seems to make the vast majority make a sensible decision. Unfortunately we're still seeing the fallout from Wakefield's dis-proven "research" in the measles epidemic we're now seeing in South Wales, which I hear someone may have died as a result of now too.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    No. Giving the state the right to decide what goes into your body is chilling. Even if it could be proven that all vaccines are 100% safe and all future vaccines will be 100% safe, it is still an infringement of fundamental rights.

    On top of this, we have no idea what future vaccines are going to come out and whether they will be safe. The medical profession is not above mistakes - remember Thalidomide? The drug that women were encouraged to take to alleviate morning sickness that then gave their children terrible birth defects.
    Well, firstly, the regulation these days is much more stringent. Not to mention I would expect a review of drug regulations if compulsary vacinations were introduced anyway.

    We have SO many laws which govern the safety of society, not the individual. We dont have speed limits around schools to protect individual drivers. Its like banging on that a 20 outside a school infringes my right to propell my body as fast as i wish.

    Equally, we can legally detain those with severe diseases that present a risk (eg SARS), if they refuse treatment. That is under current legislation. So there is no precendent that has no already been set, or some ethical line we will cross.

    Human rights are not an absolute, and it is perfectly legal to have an appropriate and proportional infringement for good reason. I would say protecting society at large is an appropriate reason to ensure children have vaccines that will be beneficial to them.

    America already has a similar policy, and there has been no dangerous results there. Nobody is carted off for medical experiments, nobody has organs harvested or experimental drugs against there will. All that happens is parents realise they have no choice so take their kids to be vaccinated.

    Ultimately, it should come down to a decision made by knowledgable, experienced people within the field. You are totally barmy if you believe John who works in Asda is making a reasonable decision to refuse vaccine because of risk worries. Almost everybody who makes these decisions to not have them is not in possession of the ability to make an evidence based judgement.

    Most of these people wouldnt know what a double blind study was if it gave them a haircut.

    Should we allow people to decide which course of treatment is pursued if they suffer from complex conditions? Of course not. We have to leave complex decisions to experts.

    Of course we shouldnt line our children up and stab them with anything with vaccine written on it, but it should be left to experts in disease control etc to decide what will be most effective if compulsary, and if the risks are justified in the end.

    There are many who cannot have vaccines due to health reasons, and it is unfair that a child with already complex medical conditions should be put at more risk because of a baseless decision by some wally.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    That would be a flimsy argument on their part, especially for the other vaccines, and frankly i wouldn't pander to conspiracy theories or dub pseudoscience when the consequences are potential lethal. Actually having a measles outbreak when there is a vaccine against it is just... unacceptable.
    It's disgraceful that it's happened, but there's a strong principle of medical autonomy - people have the right to decide what medical treatments they receive. Where it's non-urgent/non-life threatening like most vaccines then this extends to children. Possibly in the situation now you could call it an emergency and have mandatory vaccines for children in south Wales, but in normal life I think the principle of autonomy is more important. Trust in the medical establishment is important, and I wouldn't want to break down that trust by having vaccines forced on people, even if it's for their own good.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by c471)
    Well, firstly, the regulation these days is much more stringent. Not to mention I would expect a review of drug regulations if compulsary vacinations were introduced anyway.

    We have SO many laws which govern the safety of society, not the individual. We dont have speed limits around schools to protect individual drivers. Its like banging on that a 20 outside a school infringes my right to propell my body as fast as i wish.

    Equally, we can legally detain those with severe diseases that present a risk (eg SARS), if they refuse treatment. That is under current legislation. So there is no precendent that has no already been set, or some ethical line we will cross.

    Human rights are not an absolute, and it is perfectly legal to have an appropriate and proportional infringement for good reason. I would say protecting society at large is an appropriate reason to ensure children have vaccines that will be beneficial to them.

    America already has a similar policy, and there has been no dangerous results there. Nobody is carted off for medical experiments, nobody has organs harvested or experimental drugs against there will. All that happens is parents realise they have no choice so take their kids to be vaccinated.

    Ultimately, it should come down to a decision made by knowledgable, experienced people within the field. You are totally barmy if you believe John who works in Asda is making a reasonable decision to refuse vaccine because of risk worries. Almost everybody who makes these decisions to not have them is not in possession of the ability to make an evidence based judgement.

    Most of these people wouldnt know what a double blind study was if it gave them a haircut.

    Should we allow people to decide which course of treatment is pursued if they suffer from complex conditions? Of course not. We have to leave complex decisions to experts.

    Of course we shouldnt line our children up and stab them with anything with vaccine written on it, but it should be left to experts in disease control etc to decide what will be most effective if compulsary, and if the risks are justified in the end.

    There are many who cannot have vaccines due to health reasons, and it is unfair that a child with already complex medical conditions should be put at more risk because of a baseless decision by some wally.
    Sorry, but I don't think your examples are analogous. A right to excessive speed is not generally accepted.

    You want me to hand over my right to decide what goes into my body. You want me to trust that the 'experts' will get it right, every time. They don't - there have been drugs deemed safe for the market which have had terrible consequences; there have been malpractices involving whole hospitals, doctors and nurses. You seem to think that improving regulation will definitely ensure no more mistakes will be made - that's naive. No regulation is perfect and certainly no regulation is perfectly followed - there is always a chance of a terrible mistake and when considering the entirety of human future that small chance translates into a near-inevitability.

    Saying that 'nothing bad has happened in America' is naive again - the period of time involved is small. It's like saying 'nothing bad has happened with North Korea's nuclear weapons - and therefore nothing bad will ever happen.'

    The state is supposed to be servant, not master. The more rights the state has over the individual, the less free the society. Handing over to 'experts' is just as bad. You may as well not let people vote and get a think-tank to choose our next government. After all, I doubt 'John from ASDA' has detailed knowledge of economic theory and geopolitics.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    Sorry, but I don't think your examples are analogous. A right to excessive speed is not generally accepted.

    You want me to hand over my right to decide what goes into my body. You want me to trust that the 'experts' will get it right, every time. They don't - there have been drugs deemed safe for the market which have had terrible consequences; there have been malpractices involving whole hospitals, doctors and nurses. You seem to think that improving regulation will definitely ensure no more mistakes will be made - that's naive. No regulation is perfect and certainly no regulation is perfectly followed - there is always a chance of a terrible mistake and when considering the entirety of human future that small chance translates into a near-inevitability.

    Saying that 'nothing bad has happened in America' is naive again - the period of time involved is small. It's like saying 'nothing bad has happened with North Korea's nuclear weapons - and therefore nothing bad will ever happen.'

    The state is supposed to be servant, not master. The more rights the state has over the individual, the less free the society.
    Well what is the alternative? You decide everything on your own with relatively little knowledge on the matter aside from whatever you read on the internet? Which method do you think will result in more mistakes? Obviously patient autonomy should be respected, but that doesn't mean that in many of those cases whereby patients refuse the suggested treatment that they aren't doing harm to their body.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.