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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    What's right for one person isn't right for someone else.
    I don't see what grounds you could possibly say that for a vaccine. How on earth will you know whether your child will die of measles in the future? All you know about is the evidence and expert advice, which plainly says every child should get their vaccines.

    Anecdotal, my mum works in a hospital and has seen it. Apologies if it's wrong. From what I understand, they have to go to court to force it, and if it's something like a car crash often the kid dies while waiting.
    That's not true - whatever the doctors say in an emergency goes. If the doctors decide the child has capacity then fine, and he dies. Otherwise, he gets treated.


    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    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.
    So what if chance of death was 99%? Would that be acceptable to you?

    What about 90%? 50%? Where do your draw your line?

    I'm drawing mine low because i don't believe a parent should be able to blatantly harm their child to any degree. You bring up an example about paracetamol later - well in theory yes you do want to ensure that child's needs are not neglected by its parents and it gets its painkillers. Practically, it would be mpossible to enforce however. Vaccination would be easy to enforce - through schools.

    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.
    You really think you know better than the experts? What randomised control trials that the team of doctors that made the national decision weren't aware of, did you use to come to your conclusions?

    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    The state ... cannot tell me how to bring it up. That's getting into totalitarianism really.
    Yes, it can, and yes, it does. Just to an extent where most people don't notice it.

    (Original post by moonkatt)
    Gillick competent, there probably wasn't time to go to court to get an injunction to force treatment upon him and he died of his injuries.
    Gillick Competence is about opting-into treatment without parental consent/knowledge. Opting out of treatment is covered by the usual capacity laws, with the exception that you need a court injunction to override capacitous parents who are also refusing in a non-critical situation.
    Offline

    10
    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. 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.
    Granted my examples were not exactly the same, but the point is there.
    Are you against the detention and forced treatment of those with severe diseases such as SARS then?

    There are countless examples of people handing over rights to third parties. Disabled people may have a care company administer their finances etc on their behalf, doctors make decisions on behalf of those without next of kin to make them etc.

    The reality is that a compulsary vacination scheme wouldnt be the police breaking down your door and pinning your child down and injecting them, you would just make the parent liable to legal action such as a hefty fine, and prevent them from access to certain things without proof of immunisation (eg such as school).

    Compulsory doesnt mean 'with force'. It is compulsory for me to not exceed 70 on the motorway. It is compulsory for children to be in education until 16. That doesnt mean the police will physically drag your child to school and restrain them there for the entire school day.

    'Experts' make most of the decisions relating to rules in our society. Speed limits on roads are decided by 'experts'. Benchmarks and best practice in medicine is decided by experts. The construction of your house is decided by experts. What is fit for human consumption, what is hygenic, etc etc.
    And elections are essentially us choosing the 'experts' to make those decisions. They make laws that we may not approve of, we cannt dictate to the government once we elect them, so in essence it is the same.


    We are not given the choice to implement our own terms on most issues. Why should this be the case here? If you want to die of measles that fine.

    However, to infect somebody who cannot medically have the vaccine is beyond irresponsible, and should be prevented.

    With regulation, actually medical regulations over the issue of new drugs and vaccines is incredibly tight. It is no way the same as hospitals having a poor standard of care. Companies must meet high barriers to sell it here, and bodies like NICE exist purely to evaluate the safety of drugs. They are independant bodies with no vested interest.

    If a vaccine has been peer reviewed, extensively trialed (normally takes about 20 years apparently to get a new vaccine into common use), evaluated by NICE & the NHS, and approved for use, if any problems exist with it, the people refusing the vaccine will not be refusing it based on this. If the experts cant see the problem, joe public wont. They will be rejecting it for baseless reasons, and given the uptake rate by volunteers, it is hardly likely to cause widespread problems that would have been avoided on a voluntary basis.

    It is far more likely that not having the vaccine will lead to you getting and passing on the disease, then the chances of a widely distributed faulty vaccine.

    By all means, refuse the vaccine, but you should be excluded from schools and workplaces if you do. If you wish to play dice with disease, then thats fine. Once you start causing problems for other innocent parties, then the law should step in.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    I don't see what grounds you could possibly say that for a vaccine. How on earth will you know whether your child will die of measles in the future? All you know about is the evidence and expert advice, which plainly says every child should get their vaccines.
    I mean that you have to give people the evidence and let them make the decision. I have a tendency to react negatively to drugs. I had a paradoxical reaction to benzos, and hallucinated from a local anaesthetic to give you two examples. Thus, I don't like to have vaccinations that I don't think are necessary. Now, my kids might be likely to inherit this. I don't want to put them at risk. That's my decision to make.

    Another point is I don't believe that they should have no say in it. I'd rather wait until they're older and then let them decide.



    That's not true - whatever the doctors say in an emergency goes. If the doctors decide the child has capacity then fine, and he dies. Otherwise, he gets treated.
    Yeah someone pointed out to me it was down to a failure of a clinician rather than the ruling, sorry.


    So what if chance of death was 99%? Would that be acceptable to you?

    What about 90%? 50%? Where do your draw your line?
    If the harm is above 50%, then I have sympathy with your opinion. If it's not, I disagree.

    I'm drawing mine low because i don't believe a parent should be able to blatantly harm their child to any degree. You bring up an example about paracetamol later - well in theory yes you do want to ensure that child's needs are not neglected by its parents and it gets its painkillers. Practically, it would be mpossible to enforce however. Vaccination would be easy to enforce - through schools.
    This is getting into nanny state teritory again. What if that particular family prefer to use natural remedies? You think they're bad parents for that?


    You really think you know better than the experts? What randomised control trials that the team of doctors that made the national decision weren't aware of, did you use to come to your conclusions?
    I have never said that. I have said that looking at the evidence, I don't think they're right for me. I've said nothing about my view being superior to experts and trying to enforce it on others. I think there should be a choice.


    Yes, it can, and yes, it does. Just to an extent where most people don't notice it.
    That was a bit general of me, sorry. Yes to some extent, but forced vaccinations? That's really crossing the line. Where do you draw the line? Forced abortions? Forced operations? I don't think medical treatment should be forced at all
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    I mean that you have to give people the evidence and let them make the decision. I have a tendency to react negatively to drugs. I had a paradoxical reaction to benzos, and hallucinated from a local anaesthetic to give you two examples. Thus, I don't like to have vaccinations that I don't think are necessary. Now, my kids might be likely to inherit this. I don't want to put them at risk. That's my decision to make.
    If you could demonstrate medical reasons for it, I am sure any scheme would exempt you. It is a scheme designed to protect those who cannto be immunised, so it is much better to support it if you feel vaccines are not medically suitable for your children.
    Another point is I don't believe that they should have no say in it. I'd rather wait until they're older and then let them decide.
    This is a bit silly. Any reasonable child would expect their parents to make responsible decisions for them when they were young. If we leave all decisions until they are old enough, children would not get any medical help.
    Plus they cant make a moral judgement if they're dead....


    Yeah someone pointed out to me it was down to a failure of a clinician rather than the ruling, sorry.



    If the harm is above 50%, then I have sympathy with your opinion. If it's not, I disagree.


    This is getting into nanny state teritory again. What if that particular family prefer to use natural remedies? You think they're bad parents for that?
    I believe if you opt for natural remedies over established medicine you are a terrible parent, and probably boardering on willful negligence.

    Heres what happened. A long time ago, a group of scientists got together and said 'lets crack this medicine lark'. Everything that they could prove worked, became 'medicine' and everything else was rejected. If it is not established medicine, it is because it has never been proved to be of significant help.

    I have never said that. I have said that looking at the evidence, I don't think they're right for me. I've said nothing about my view being superior to experts and trying to enforce it on others. I think there should be a choice.
    Thats fine. So are you happy to be excluded from public spaces?
    Do you believe your feeling of it not being right for you trumps the right to life of a leukiemia sufferer who you could unknowingly infect?

    That was a bit general of me, sorry. Yes to some extent, but forced vaccinations? That's really crossing the line. Where do you draw the line? Forced abortions? Forced operations? I don't think medical treatment should be forced at all
    Again forced doesnt mean by force. Why not say if you do not vaccinate your child, you can be fined up to £1000, and be fine every 3 months if the situation has not been corrected.

    Your right to dictate your own treatment is trumped by the right of others not to be infected or affected by you. We can forcibly treat people with contagious diseases etc already, and this is medically and ethically accepted.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by c471)


    Again forced doesnt mean by force. Why not say if you do not vaccinate your child, you can be fined up to £1000, and be fine every 3 months if the situation has not been corrected.

    Is that not the same thing, weather you force something or use pressure to 'force' it you are achieving the same goal via the same method. Besides, fines don't work. It is usually the poorer members of society that find themselves privy to them as thus the poor get poorer, the rich...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by c471)
    If you could demonstrate medical reasons for it, I am sure any scheme would exempt you. It is a scheme designed to protect those who cannto be immunised, so it is much better to support it if you feel vaccines are not medically suitable for your children.

    This is a bit silly. Any reasonable child would expect their parents to make responsible decisions for them when they were young. If we leave all decisions until they are old enough, children would not get any medical help.
    Plus they cant make a moral judgement if they're dead....

    I believe if you opt for natural remedies over established medicine you are a terrible parent, and probably boardering on willful negligence.

    Heres what happened. A long time ago, a group of scientists got together and said 'lets crack this medicine lark'. Everything that they could prove worked, became 'medicine' and everything else was rejected. If it is not established medicine, it is because it has never been proved to be of significant help.

    Thats fine. So are you happy to be excluded from public spaces?
    Do you believe your feeling of it not being right for you trumps the right to life of a leukiemia sufferer who you could unknowingly infect?


    Again forced doesnt mean by force. Why not say if you do not vaccinate your child, you can be fined up to £1000, and be fine every 3 months if the situation has not been corrected.

    Your right to dictate your own treatment is trumped by the right of others not to be infected or affected by you. We can forcibly treat people with contagious diseases etc already, and this is medically and ethically accepted.
    That's not much of an argument. For one thing, known immunosuppressed patients will be under very strict monitoring and hygiene regimes. You would be far more likely to infect someone with a common cold virus or the myriad of other common pathogens people carry, vaccinating someone against MMR will do little in protecting immunosuppressed patients.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by coconut2456)
    That's not much of an argument. For one thing, known immunosuppressed patients will be under very strict monitoring and hygiene regimes. You would be far more likely to infect someone with a common cold virus or the myriad of other common pathogens people carry, vaccinating someone against MMR will do little in protecting immunosuppressed patients.
    So it is acceptable to give them potentially fatal diseases because you would give them a cold anyway?

    And it is not just that case, I was expecting people to grasp the concept without enumerating it entirely.

    What about people who have the vaccine but do not develop immunity? Those too young to have had it?
    And what of the extra preventable pressure you may put on the medical system. If you develop complications, you are essentially draining resources based on an uneducated decision you made. I dont think it is fair for the taxpayer to foot the bill of care for those who refused the vaccine either.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannydoy)
    Is that not the same thing, weather you force something or use pressure to 'force' it you are achieving the same goal via the same method. Besides, fines don't work. It is usually the poorer members of society that find themselves privy to them as thus the poor get poorer, the rich...
    what tosh. Given it is a free, widely available resource, the social standing is irrelevant. How are the 'poor' being victimised by this policy in any way?

    So is it wrong to force children to go to school then? or force parents to provide a minimum standard of their children?

    We 'force' things everyday. It has not yet led us down the road to immorality or destruction. It is just scare mongering to suggest forcing children to have vaccines is going to lead to some matrix-esque future where we are all carted off and harvested against our will.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by c471)
    If you could demonstrate medical reasons for it, I am sure any scheme would exempt you. It is a scheme designed to protect those who cannto be immunised, so it is much better to support it if you feel vaccines are not medically suitable for your children.
    I have bipolar, but that wasn't the exact cause for it. No one knows why, but they speculate it could have something to do with it. Either way hallucinations from an anaesthetic at 13 was terrifying and not something I want to subject my kids to. What do you mean by the scheme, I'm not sure if I understand?

    This is a bit silly. Any reasonable child would expect their parents to make responsible decisions for them when they were young. If we leave all decisions until they are old enough, children would not get any medical help.
    Plus they cant make a moral judgement if they're dead....
    Not really. I'd be pissed if I found out my parents had made me have something I radically disagreed with. I myself am vaccinated, but luckily they allowed me to opt out of others. If they'd have tried to force me I'd not have been very happy.

    I believe if you opt for natural remedies over established medicine you are a terrible parent, and probably boardering on willful negligence.
    Why? Both myself and my mum find they work for us. We're not pushing them on everyone else, we're not saying we never use conventional medicine. I wouldn't say they can only use it. But I'd prefer to try it first. I don't really think that's terrible

    Heres what happened. A long time ago, a group of scientists got together and said 'lets crack this medicine lark'. Everything that they could prove worked, became 'medicine' and everything else was rejected. If it is not established medicine, it is because it has never been proved to be of significant help.
    I'm not an idiot. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that for me personally, there are other things I prefer.

    Thats fine. So are you happy to be excluded from public spaces?
    Do you believe your feeling of it not being right for you trumps the right to life of a leukiemia sufferer who you could unknowingly infect?
    What the ****? No. You cannot exclude someone from public spaces because they are not vaccinated. Let's exclude anyone coming from India and African countries, because they might have TB. :rolleyes:

    I believe my right to a choice is just as important. My right to not want to have a terrible reaction is my right.

    Again forced doesnt mean by force. Why not say if you do not vaccinate your child, you can be fined up to £1000, and be fine every 3 months if the situation has not been corrected.
    What a choice that is.

    Your right to dictate your own treatment is trumped by the right of others not to be infected or affected by you. We can forcibly treat people with contagious diseases etc already, and this is medically and ethically accepted.
    But not all unvaccinated people are spreading it. You can't treat people because they MIGHT.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by c471)
    what tosh. Given it is a free, widely available resource, the social standing is irrelevant. How are the 'poor' being victimised by this policy in any way?
    Well, if you want to make something compulsory, then this shouldn't be an issue, however it is a sensitive subject and many people will not want it forced on them or their children. The poor are beeing victomised in this particular sample as their right to choose is being taken away. The rich however still have the right to choose, £1000 a month is alot more to you when you earn £15,000 a year than it is when you earn £100,000.

    (Original post by c471)
    So is it wrong to force children to go to school then? or force parents to provide a minimum standard of their children?

    You will find people that say it is wrong that all children must attend school in its traditional form in this country, yes. You will find people that are much more in favour of apprenticeships and other methods of study. Children are still permitted to be home schooled as far as I am aware.


    (Original post by c471)
    We 'force' things everyday. It has not yet led us down the road to immorality or destruction. It is just scare mongering to suggest forcing children to have vaccines is going to lead to some matrix-esque future where we are all carted off and harvested against our will.

    Hasn't it? why are we having this debate?
    Not meaning to go off on a conspiracy angle here, but the government is moving in to our lives to take control more and more.
    Heres an example. If we compare the governments input into our lives between 2005 and 2010 we might think there is no drastic change, but if we compare between 1975 and 2010 we will see a big change,
    The dates are not important here but you get the idea.

    The government will keep pushing, slowly but surely
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by c471)
    Granted my examples were not exactly the same, but the point is there.
    Are you against the detention and forced treatment of those with severe diseases such as SARS then?

    There are countless examples of people handing over rights to third parties. Disabled people may have a care company administer their finances etc on their behalf, doctors make decisions on behalf of those without next of kin to make them etc.

    The reality is that a compulsary vacination scheme wouldnt be the police breaking down your door and pinning your child down and injecting them, you would just make the parent liable to legal action such as a hefty fine, and prevent them from access to certain things without proof of immunisation (eg such as school).

    Compulsory doesnt mean 'with force'. It is compulsory for me to not exceed 70 on the motorway. It is compulsory for children to be in education until 16. That doesnt mean the police will physically drag your child to school and restrain them there for the entire school day.

    'Experts' make most of the decisions relating to rules in our society. Speed limits on roads are decided by 'experts'. Benchmarks and best practice in medicine is decided by experts. The construction of your house is decided by experts. What is fit for human consumption, what is hygenic, etc etc.
    And elections are essentially us choosing the 'experts' to make those decisions. They make laws that we may not approve of, we cannt dictate to the government once we elect them, so in essence it is the same.


    We are not given the choice to implement our own terms on most issues. Why should this be the case here? If you want to die of measles that fine.

    However, to infect somebody who cannot medically have the vaccine is beyond irresponsible, and should be prevented.

    With regulation, actually medical regulations over the issue of new drugs and vaccines is incredibly tight. It is no way the same as hospitals having a poor standard of care. Companies must meet high barriers to sell it here, and bodies like NICE exist purely to evaluate the safety of drugs. They are independant bodies with no vested interest.

    If a vaccine has been peer reviewed, extensively trialed (normally takes about 20 years apparently to get a new vaccine into common use), evaluated by NICE & the NHS, and approved for use, if any problems exist with it, the people refusing the vaccine will not be refusing it based on this. If the experts cant see the problem, joe public wont. They will be rejecting it for baseless reasons, and given the uptake rate by volunteers, it is hardly likely to cause widespread problems that would have been avoided on a voluntary basis.

    It is far more likely that not having the vaccine will lead to you getting and passing on the disease, then the chances of a widely distributed faulty vaccine.

    By all means, refuse the vaccine, but you should be excluded from schools and workplaces if you do. If you wish to play dice with disease, then thats fine. Once you start causing problems for other innocent parties, then the law should step in.
    I don't think there's any point going on, because your analogies just show you have a very different view on the sanctity of liberty to me. Your examples in this post are of people willingly handing over rights to third parties - not of people's rights being handed over without consent. The detention of SAARS patients is an extreme case - it is a person who is definitely contagious with a deadly disease. In the same way, I am OK with detention without trial in limited circumstances of public emergency - but that does not imply I am OK with throwing away the right to trial in general.

    Again, no matter how stringent regulation may be, it is not perfect and is definitely not perfectly followed. There may be only a tiny, tiny chance of an unsafe vaccine coming to market. But given the entirety of human future, that tiny chance will translate into a positive occurrence. It may be only something which affects 1 in 20 million people who have some rare unknown allergy - or it may be one of the current vaccines that currently cause allergic effects for unknown reasons in a small minority of people. Either way, people have the right to not take that risk, no matter how small it may be, and no matter how irrational you think the decision is.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    I have bipolar, but that wasn't the exact cause for it. No one knows why, but they speculate it could have something to do with it. Either way hallucinations from an anaesthetic at 13 was terrifying and not something I want to subject my kids to. What do you mean by the scheme, I'm not sure if I understand?
    as in a compulsary vaccination scheme.

    Not really. I'd be pissed if I found out my parents had made me have something I radically disagreed with. I myself am vaccinated, but luckily they allowed me to opt out of others. If they'd have tried to force me I'd not have been very happy.


    Why? Both myself and my mum find they work for us. We're not pushing them on everyone else, we're not saying we never use conventional medicine. I wouldn't say they can only use it. But I'd prefer to try it first. I don't really think that's terrible
    Im not sure how to even respond to that. wow.
    I'm not an idiot. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that for me personally, there are other things I prefer.


    What the ****? No. You cannot exclude someone from public spaces because they are not vaccinated. Let's exclude anyone coming from India and African countries, because they might have TB. :rolleyes:
    Actually we do. Right from the immigration rules:

    (ii) in the case of a person suffering from a communicable disease, has satisfied the Medical Inspector that there is no danger to public health;

    Why is it that bad? If there was even the slightest risk I had Anthrax, I would have men in boiler suits sitting on my head and carting me off before you could count to 10. Same with countless public health risks.

    Why should you be allowed to be a danger to public health? If even one person died as a result of somebody elses opt out, that is too many.
    I believe my right to a choice is just as important. My right to not want to have a terrible reaction is my right.
    No it isnt. Your right can be amended and taken away quite legally for legitimate reason.
    What a choice that is.
    Exactly. Why does it change anything? If you believe it is so terrible it would make no difference. If a measely thousand pounds is enough to sway you, it shows how weak the reasoning is.
    If somebody imposed the same penalty if you did not murder and consume your entire family, would you relent and do it? Of course not. If you genuinely believe the welfare of your family was at stake, it would not matter what sanctions were put in place.

    But not all unvaccinated people are spreading it. You can't treat people because they MIGHT.
    Yes you can. Not all gun owners are serial killers. But we treat them all as if they might kill somebody with one.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by c471)
    as in a compulsary vaccination scheme.

    Im not sure how to even respond to that. wow.
    Why?

    Actually we do. Right from the immigration rules:

    (ii) in the case of a person suffering from a communicable disease, has satisfied the Medical Inspector that there is no danger to public health;
    We do not bar everyone on the grounds that they might be infected.

    Why is it that bad? If there was even the slightest risk I had Anthrax, I would have men in boiler suits sitting on my head and carting me off before you could count to 10. Same with countless public health risks.
    Because being unvaccinated is not the same as having a disease.

    Why should you be allowed to be a danger to public health? If even one person died as a result of somebody elses opt out, that is too many.
    If even one person dies as a result of a compulsary vaccination programme, that is too many

    No it isnt. Your right can be amended and taken away quite legally for legitimate reason.
    Totalitarianism

    Exactly. Why does it change anything? If you believe it is so terrible it would make no difference. If a measely thousand pounds is enough to sway you, it shows how weak the reasoning is.
    If somebody imposed the same penalty if you did not murder and consume your entire family, would you relent and do it? Of course not. If you genuinely believe the welfare of your family was at stake, it would not matter what sanctions were put in place.
    It would force the poor into decisions they wouldn't want to take. If someone were poor, they wouldn't have that money. Therefore they would have to pay. It wouldn't change my opinion, yet for others it would give them a horrible option.


    Yes you can. Not all gun owners are serial killers. But we treat them all as if they might kill somebody with one.
    This is ridiculous. I cannot believe the amount of people who choose nanny state over liberty.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    I don't think there's any point going on, because your analogies just show you have a very different view on the sanctity of liberty to me. Your examples in this post are of people willingly handing over rights to third parties - not of people's rights being handed over without consent. The detention of SAARS patients is an extreme case - it is a person who is definitely contagious with a deadly disease. In the same way, I am OK with detention without trial in limited circumstances of public emergency - but that does not imply I am OK with throwing away the right to trial in general.

    Again, no matter how stringent regulation may be, it is not perfect and is definitely not perfectly followed. There may be only a tiny, tiny chance of an unsafe vaccine coming to market. But given the entirety of human future, that tiny chance will translate into a positive occurrence. It may be only something which affects 1 in 20 million people who have some rare unknown allergy - or it may be one of the current vaccines that currently cause allergic effects for unknown reasons in a small minority of people. Either way, people have the right to not take that risk, no matter how small it may be, and no matter how irrational you think the decision is.
    :yep:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by c471)
    So it is acceptable to give them potentially fatal diseases because you would give them a cold anyway?

    And it is not just that case, I was expecting people to grasp the concept without enumerating it entirely.

    What about people who have the vaccine but do not develop immunity? Those too young to have had it?
    And what of the extra preventable pressure you may put on the medical system. If you develop complications, you are essentially draining resources based on an uneducated decision you made. I dont think it is fair for the taxpayer to foot the bill of care for those who refused the vaccine either.
    No, I don't see how you could have drawn that implication from what I've said. I'll explain it more clearly, the point is that someone who is vaccinated has almost just as much chance as infecting an immunosuppressed person as an unvaccinated person, the differences are too small to be worth considering.

    For those too young to have had the vaccine, the same argument as the immunosuppressed patient can be applied.

    Your arguments are weak. A much better argument would be impeding the eradication of this disease, giving the viruses more time to mutate and bypass any current treatments/vaccines we may have.

    Financially it's not as simple as that. Consider the cost of the vaccine itself and the doctor/nurse's time which costs money as well as any complications which may arise as a result of the vaccination, also consider that in most cases MMR infections are self-limiting and will simply resolve over time. So if we're talking about probability here, chances are that by not accepting the vaccine, you're saving the NHS money if anything.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Ok so the only problem I have with trusting that the vaccinations are 100% safe is this. Actually no medical intervention is 100% safe so lets say safe in the vast majority. It is in the governments interest (from a cost point of view) and the publics interest from a health point of view to prevent measels spreading.

    If a vaccine is found to increase the risk of say diabetes in 0.01% of people would this study be allowed to be published? If the government are promoting health in the population then by allowing this study to be published would potentially cause severe harm to health of the public and costs since people would start to avoid vaccinations again and catch measels/TB/Polio etc. So surely it is in everyones interest to keep these studies quiet. With every lifestyle choice and intervention we usually see reputable evidence on a regular basis for and against even with exercise, sun exposure, diet.. So when it comes to vaccinations its an interesting matter, it is in the publics interest to keep conflicting evidence quiet. Is this allowed to occur for the sake of public health does anyone know?

    We know that correlation does not imply causation but some evidence concludes that certain viruses ie enteroviruses and immune responses can trigger diabetes, this is exactly what vaccinations do..create an immune response so Id assume this is still being studied I dont know.

    It just seems that even if a respectable study showed that vaccinations can cause any harm it would not be published due to the consequesnces of people avoiding vaccination.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by civilstudent)
    Ok so the only problem I have with trusting that the vaccinations are 100% safe is this. Actually no medical intervention is 100% safe so lets say safe in the vast majority. It is in the governments interest (from a cost point of view) and the publics interest from a health point of view to prevent measels spreading.

    If a vaccine is found to increase the risk of say diabetes in 0.01% of people would this study be allowed to be published? If the government are promoting health in the population then by allowing this study to be published would potentially cause severe harm to health of the public and costs since people would start to avoid vaccinations again and catch measels/TB/Polio etc. So surely it is in everyones interest to keep these studies quiet. With every lifestyle choice and intervention we usually see reputable evidence on a regular basis for and against even with exercise, sun exposure, diet.. So when it comes to vaccinations its an interesting matter, it is in the publics interest to keep conflicting evidence quiet. Is this allowed to occur for the sake of public health does anyone know?

    We know that correlation does not imply causation but some evidence concludes that certain viruses ie enteroviruses and immune responses can trigger diabetes, this is exactly what vaccinations do..create an immune response so Id assume this is still being studied I dont know.

    It just seems that even if a respectable study showed that vaccinations can cause any harm it would not be published due to the consequesnces of people avoiding vaccination.
    Of course it would get published. It is in no one's interest to cover these things up, even if it was possible to do so, which it isn't (researchers could publish in other countries, or on the internet)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by civilstudent)
    Ok so the only problem I have with trusting that the vaccinations are 100% safe is this. Actually no medical intervention is 100% safe so lets say safe in the vast majority. It is in the governments interest (from a cost point of view) and the publics interest from a health point of view to prevent measels spreading.

    If a vaccine is found to increase the risk of say diabetes in 0.01% of people would this study be allowed to be published? If the government are promoting health in the population then by allowing this study to be published would potentially cause severe harm to health of the public and costs since people would start to avoid vaccinations again and catch measels/TB/Polio etc. So surely it is in everyones interest to keep these studies quiet. With every lifestyle choice and intervention we usually see reputable evidence on a regular basis for and against even with exercise, sun exposure, diet.. So when it comes to vaccinations its an interesting matter, it is in the publics interest to keep conflicting evidence quiet. Is this allowed to occur for the sake of public health does anyone know?

    We know that correlation does not imply causation but some evidence concludes that certain viruses ie enteroviruses and immune responses can trigger diabetes, this is exactly what vaccinations do..create an immune response so Id assume this is still being studied I dont know.

    It just seems that even if a respectable study showed that vaccinations can cause any harm it would not be published due to the consequesnces of people avoiding vaccination.
    Well the government doesn't really have a say in what does and doesn't get published. They get published in international peer-reviewed journals so each paper gets critiqued by independent experts in the field who wouldn't care less what a particular a country's government wants. The experts and the journals themselves would be putting their reputation, which they would have built up over decades, at risk for relatively little gain.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    Of course it would get published. It is in no one's interest to cover these things up, even if it was possible to do so, which it isn't (researchers could publish in other countries, or on the internet)
    It would be in the interests of the public (who wants measel/polio epidemics?) to cover up slight or increased risk of vaccinations to certain individuals. It would be in the interest of the majority of the public. Look at the wakefield study and the public reaction- people being unvaccinated against measels because of a risk which was highlihted. It is in a lot of peoples interest to cover up studies which suggest there is a risk to vaccinations! So they could probably argue that its a risk to the public to publish research which doesnt fit the 'vaccinations are safe' logo. Im just wondering if there is a law on this under 'public health and safety' or something.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    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?
    Hmm but we already have a nanny state

    Don't wear your seatbelt and you can get fined £60 per passenger not wearing one!

    Where will it stop?
 
 
 
  • 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.