Judge rules MMR vaccines must be had Watch

Tyrion_Lannister
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#41
(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
So you felt that the benefits weren't large enough to outweigh the perceived risks associated with taking the vaccines?
Yes.
0
reply
Hype en Ecosse
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#42
Report 5 years ago
#42
(Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
Yes.
Awesome, thanks.
0
reply
Tyrion_Lannister
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#43
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#43
(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
Awesome, thanks.
For what? :confused:
0
reply
tory88
  • Study Helper
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#44
Report 5 years ago
#44
There are certain things that need to be compulsory, and one of them should be vaccination. The girls are too young to know what they want, and the mother should know better. But vaccination isn't just to protect the person being vaccinated, it's also to protect against epidemic. And that, much like education so someone can get a job, is something that should be compulsory for the good of the whole.
0
reply
Hype en Ecosse
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#45
Report 5 years ago
#45
(Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
For what? :confused:
For answering my questions: that was pretty much all I wanted to know, and thought it would be politer to thank you than just ignore the response.
0
reply
Tyrion_Lannister
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#46
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#46
(Original post by tory88)
There are certain things that need to be compulsory, and one of them should be vaccination. The girls are too young to know what they want, and the mother should know better. But vaccination isn't just to protect the person being vaccinated, it's also to protect against epidemic. And that, much like education so someone can get a job, is something that should be compulsory for the good of the whole.
At least one of them is definitely old enough.

And the good of all never outweighs individuality and human rights..
0
reply
Tyrion_Lannister
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#47
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#47
(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
For answering my questions: that was pretty much all I wanted to know, and thought it would be politer to thank you than just ignore the response.
Oh okay Sorry, I'm ill and I'm really thick headed right now and I was like huh :s

That makes sense!
0
reply
tory88
  • Study Helper
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#48
Report 5 years ago
#48
(Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
At least one of them is definitely old enough.

And the good of all never outweighs individuality and human rights..
11 and 15 are both still children I'm afraid. They can't vote, drink, drive, live on their own, get a job etc. because most people at that age are not responsible enough to make those decisions. I normally come down on the side of individual freedoms, but really there is no logical argument against vaccination - it's just bad science that's been peddled by the media far too much - so I think on this occasion overall good does override their rights.
0
reply
Tyrion_Lannister
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#49
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#49
(Original post by tory88)
11 and 15 are both still children I'm afraid. They can't vote, drink, drive, live on their own, get a job etc. because most people at that age are not responsible enough to make those decisions. I normally come down on the side of individual freedoms, but really there is no logical argument against vaccination - it's just bad science that's been peddled by the media far too much - so I think on this occasion overall good does override their rights.
Children are people not objects, and 15 is definitely old enough to decide whether you want to be vaccinated. I took the decision at that age and I do not regret it. I researched it, looked up both arguments, and came to my own conclusions. To assume someone cannot make a proper decision because of their age is patronising.

It's not whether there's a logical argument against it or not it's the principle that the government shouldn't be able to tell people what to do with their bodies..
0
reply
tory88
  • Study Helper
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#50
Report 5 years ago
#50
(Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
Children are people not objects, and 15 is definitely old enough to decide whether you want to be vaccinated. I took the decision at that age and I do not regret it. I researched it, looked up both arguments, and came to my own conclusions. To assume someone cannot make a proper decision because of their age is patronising.

It's not whether there's a logical argument against it or not it's the principle that the government shouldn't be able to tell people what to do with their bodies..
So where's you cut-off - it 14 old enough? What about 12? There has to be a point set, which will unfortunately be somewhat arbitrary. When you say you researched it, what did you find that made you decide not to have the vaccination? Why is a parent telling someone what to do with their bodies better than the government doing it (in this case, once again I broadly agree with the principle)?
0
reply
Moosferatu
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#51
Report 5 years ago
#51
(Original post by thechibi)
Well. We need herd immunity to protect those who can't get vaccinations. We've already had resurgences of these diseases and people forget how bad/deadly these infections are.
Some people would rather have endemics of deadly diseases, people dying in the streets so they can defend their freedoms.

Maybe we should just say **** it and bring back King Cholera.
0
reply
Patrick Wallace
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#52
Report 5 years ago
#52
(Original post by Sinatrafan)
This is interesting in the context of medicine, not wider government. Medicine is an extremely risk adverse profession with free choice, personal autonomy and informed consent being at the heart of every action and decision. If I take your pulse without gaining your permission first I can be sued and struck off, let alone sticking you with a needle actively against your will.

So no, in the grand scheme of state actions that deny people their liberties it isn't that big a deal, but when placed in the context of the field it is very unusual and I therefore find that interesting.
You think that forcing vaccinations being deemed legal is not only unusual but very unusual?
0
reply
Tyrion_Lannister
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#53
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#53
(Original post by tory88)
So where's you cut-off - it 14 old enough? What about 12? There has to be a point set, which will unfortunately be somewhat arbitrary. When you say you researched it, what did you find that made you decide not to have the vaccination? Why is a parent telling someone what to do with their bodies better than the government doing it (in this case, once again I broadly agree with the principle)?
You assess it on an individual basis.

I didn't think the benefits outweighed the risks. And I don't think a parent should be able to tell their child to have vaccines
0
reply
tory88
  • Study Helper
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#54
Report 5 years ago
#54
(Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
You assess it on an individual basis.

I didn't think the benefits outweighed the risks. And I don't think a parent should be able to tell their child to have vaccines
How do you assess on an individual basis in a way that doesn't cost a significant amount? Also, what risks? What about with a baby or young child - who decides on the vaccines given to them?
0
reply
Tyrion_Lannister
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#55
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#55
(Original post by tory88)
How do you assess on an individual basis in a way that doesn't cost a significant amount? Also, what risks? What about with a baby or young child - who decides on the vaccines given to them?
If someone doesn't want a vaccine and their parents agree, leave it. If they don't want one and their parents don't agree, assess it.

Risks of allergic reactions and additives in the vaccines.

If it's a young child I can see the parents deciding but I think once someone is at secondary school, they start to have the right to decide for themselves. An example being when I was 10, I decided I wanted to become vegetarian, and my parents were fine with it. Because they respected me as a person and respected my individuality. I cannot stand people that treat children like inanimate things.
0
reply
tory88
  • Study Helper
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#56
Report 5 years ago
#56
(Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
If someone doesn't want a vaccine and their parents agree, leave it. If they don't want one and their parents don't agree, assess it.

Risks of allergic reactions and additives in the vaccines.

If it's a young child I can see the parents deciding but I think once someone is at secondary school, they start to have the right to decide for themselves. An example being when I was 10, I decided I wanted to become vegetarian, and my parents were fine with it. Because they respected me as a person and respected my individuality. I cannot stand people that treat children like inanimate things.
Parents can be incredibly misinformed though. Allergic reaction is a tiny, tiny risk. An additive just means something that is added, so there's no inherent risk there.

The choice to become a vegetarian only affects you, the choice to go unvaccinated affects other people as well. That to me is the key difference. An adult should be able to do anything they want (including raise their child in whatever way they see fit) provided it doesn't affect people who haven't consented to being involved.
0
reply
Dr Pesto
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#57
Report 5 years ago
#57
I'm not sure how I feel about this argument; I'm usually vehemently against authoritarian actions like forcing vaccination, and I hate the idea of people telling me what I can and can't do with my body. But at the same time, the importance of herd immunity and the fact that generally there aren't convincing arguments against vaccines means that I'm kind of on the fence.
0
reply
ThatPerson
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#58
Report 5 years ago
#58
(Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...e-against-will

Thoughts? Personally I think this is disgusting. One of the girls is vegan, both of them have looked into it and they and their mother have decided they don't want it. Seems bad they can be forced.
Vaccination is not only good for those vaccinated, but provides collective safety. If a large percentage of a community is not vaccinated, disease can spread very rapidly.

I think the health benefits to the children as well as the community outweigh the mothers opinion.

Vaccination is always preferable to to the actual disease.
0
reply
thechibi
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#59
Report 5 years ago
#59
(Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
Yes.
Have you seen the symptoms and complications of these diseases? The odds of a side effect from a vaccine are much, much lower. Few things in life are entirely risk free (not even sleep).

And truthfully, that's not even calculating in what happens when the very young, old, pregnant or immunocompromised folks get these diseases.

They were known as childhood killers for a reason. They still ARE in some places and watching kids suffer and die is pretty horrible. There's even videos on youtube of patients with these illnesses and it's awful.

Usually, we need herd immunity to protect those who cannot get vaccinations. When herd immunity fails, it's not pretty.

If the two girls were full adults, they would have legal agency. They do not, and as such, the decision falls to their legal guardians. Unfortunately, in this case, a spat between the parents made it into a legal case. That's pretty much the reason this even came to court. And really, I have yet to meet a kid (or adults for that matter) who enjoy getting the shots. I suspect they'd enjoy the disease much less.

And no, you don't have to treat kids like things. But their brains are still developing.
0
reply
Tyrion_Lannister
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#60
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#60
(Original post by thechibi)
Have you seen the symptoms and complications of these diseases? The odds of a side effect from a vaccine are much, much lower. Few things in life are entirely risk free (not even sleep).

And truthfully, that's not even calculating in what happens when the very young, old, pregnant or immunocompromised folks get these diseases.

They were known as childhood killers for a reason. They still ARE in some places and watching kids suffer and die is pretty horrible. There's even videos on youtube of patients with these illnesses and it's awful.

Usually, we need herd immunity to protect those who cannot get vaccinations. When herd immunity fails, it's not pretty.

If the two girls were full adults, they would have legal agency. They do not, and as such, the decision falls to their legal guardians. Unfortunately, in this case, a spat between the parents made it into a legal case. That's pretty much the reason this even came to court. And really, I have yet to meet a kid (or adults for that matter) who enjoy getting the shots. I suspect they'd enjoy the disease much less.

And no, you don't have to treat kids like things. But their brains are still developing.
Yeah, my mum had measles and mumps. No it's not risk free but it's up to me whether I want to risk the disease or the vaccination.

Herd immunity isn't something I agre with. If people want the vaccine they can have it. If others don't, they shouldn't have to. Why should I have to take a risk I might be uncomfortable with for others?

15 is old enough to make your own decisions.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1411)
79.63%
Leave (361)
20.37%

Watched Threads

View All