Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Should vaccinations be compulsory for all? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by civilstudent)
    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 minority 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.
    Surely the fact that the wakefield paper got published in the first place is evidence enough that journals will publish any possible dangers of vaccines even if they aren't in a government's best interests? One could argue that it is in the public interest for them to be properly informed of all of the possible side-effects and dangers. The only papers that will get "covered up" are those with poor methods and most likely inaccurate results.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by civilstudent)
    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.
    I'd argue it's never in the interests of the public to cover up information of the type you are suggesting. The public's perception that this sort of thing could happen was what paved the way for Wakefield's ridiculous MMR/autism imaginings. Although there was no foundation to his absurd claims, the public took a long time to believe it. Trust is easily lost, and hard to win back - cover-ups must always be avoided.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    I'd argue it's never in the interests of the public to cover up information of the type you are suggesting. The public's perception that this sort of thing could happen was what paved the way for Wakefield's ridiculous MMR/autism imaginings. Although there was no foundation to his absurd claims, the public took a long time to believe it. Trust is easily lost, and hard to win back - cover-ups must always be avoided.
    Yeh fair point though Im not talking about vaccinations being deadly, I mean studies which for example might show that they could slightly increase the risk of autoimmune diseases like diabetes/MS in certain individuals.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (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.
    It would get published as others have said but... lets just follow your theory through for a second. With optional vaccination the government does have an incentive to try to cover scare stories up. With compulsory vaccination... that wouldn't exist. People would be vaccinated anyway. So, what you're saying is a (very weak) argument for compulsory vaccination.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (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.
    A number of countries require evidence of vaccination before school entry, on the basis that an unvaccinated individual is a public health risk. If you don't like it, you have to provide home-schooling, with the same enforcement as other people who home-school, or private-schools who don't follow the national curriculum (i.e. not much).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    It would get published as others have said but... lets just follow your theory through for a second. With optional vaccination the government does have an incentive to try to cover scare stories up. With compulsory vaccination... that wouldn't exist. People would be vaccinated anyway. So, what you're saying is a (very weak) argument for compulsory vaccination.
    I think even with compulsory vaccination there would be an incentive to cover scare stories up, the more trusting and co operative the public are the better.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by civilstudent)
    I think even with compulsory vaccination there would be an incentive to cover scare stories up, the more trusting and co operative the public are the better.
    The public would only be docile until news of the cover-up broke.

    Besides, it would be impossible to maintain a cover-up for long. The medical community is not a monolith - it has different constituencies (researchers, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, governments, etc), each with different roles and responsibilities. And nothing could be done to suppress a story in other countries.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pawsies)
    Being unvaccinated causing others disease is a common flaw that does the rounds. The only people at risk from unvaccinated people are other unvaccinated people, after all you're vaccinated why would you catch it?!

    Should be freedom of choice.
    Some people have a legitimate health reason why they shouldn't get it; e.g. their allergic. To allow these people to risk catching the disease just because some people to whom it is perfectly safe don't like needles is, I think, unacceptable.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with not getting vaccinated is that in the process you put other peoples lives at risk.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Some people have a legitimate health reason why they shouldn't get it; e.g. their allergic. To allow these people to risk catching the disease just because some people to whom it is perfectly safe don't like needles is, I think, unacceptable.
    What about people that have a genuine phobia of needles?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Sure, your body is your own, but you're not allowed to walk around spraying poison gas in the air, and in the same way, you should not be allowed to walk around carrying a disease which can easily spread.

    Therefore, if you carry a disease you must either find a way to rid yourself of it, or not leave your home, and remain under quarantine.

    However, since people are not particularly great at recognising whether or not they carry a disease in its early stages, there should be a very strict punishment for those who walk around in public whilst carrying a disease (which would only be enforced if the person had refused the vaccine).

    This would essentially force people to accept the vaccines - if they don't feel the vaccines are safe then it is up to them to find another way of vaccinating themselves, or risk serious penalties for essentially poisoning others.

    For those who have a phobia of needles, can't you put them to sleep first?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I believe they should be since we need these vaccinations e.g. MRR to protect us from the mumps which can be spread quite easily and if one person doesn't have the vaccination it will spread and could contaiminate the country e.g. Swine Flu did and also other diseases can be rubela which can harm unborn children.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    What about people that have a genuine phobia of needles?
    Maybe give them counseling and then try giving it too them when/if they get over it. Though admittedly I'm not too sure if such a law would be enforceable, but ideally at least, I think it should be compulsory.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pawsies)
    Being unvaccinated causing others disease is a common flaw that does the rounds. The only people at risk from unvaccinated people are other unvaccinated people, after all you're vaccinated why would you catch it?!

    Should be freedom of choice.
    Not getting into freedom of choice here, but yours is the misconception. The key beneficial effect of vaccine is herd immunity - and it applies to the whole herd, not just those who aren't vaccinated because most/all vaccinations don't 100% stop the disease. They just reduce the likelihood to a great extent, yes protecting the individual but importantly preventing epidemics.

    There are also those individuals who are actually or effectively un-vaccinated not through choice. Some individuals with immunocompromise can't be vaccinated, in some individuals vaccines don't work.

    (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?
    Actually they can and are. An emergency court can make the decision within an hour. Cases where children are not given blood transfusions are due to the child having Gillick competency and choosing themselves not to have the treatment.


    Weighing in the debate, I am unsure as to the benefits vs costs of making vaccines (for children) compulsory, and what is the right answer to the question. I think that all competent adults and children should be free to decide either way, with the principle of autonomy overriding. But as to parents deciding for their child?

    I do believe the decision not to vaccinate your child (when encouraged to do so by a medical practitioner) is ignorant and irresponsible.

    EDIT: If people were half as afraid of the much more likely, horrendous complications (including death, severe brain damage, permanent organ damage, seizures etc) of being unvaccinated to diseases such as measles, meningitis C, rubella, diptheria, TB, etc as they are of vague, unproven, extremely rare or transient side effects of vaccination, the world would be a safer place for children. Vaccinations aren't without risk, but neither is not being vaccinated - which for most individuals carries the greater risk.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Maybe give them counseling and then try giving it too them when/if they get over it. Though admittedly I'm not too sure if such a law would be enforceable, but ideally at least, I think it should be compulsory.
    What if they couldn't get over it? Would they be forced?

    It isn't enforcable but I find it interesting to see what people feel is morally acceptable in a situation like this, so where you could force someone to have an injection but it could traumatise them and really cause problems or agree to them not to have it but that causes a health risk. It's fascinating.
    Offline

    0
    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.
    At the same time, though, schools should be allowed to ensure that they will be protected against disease to the best of their ability.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    What if they couldn't get over it? Would they be forced?

    It isn't enforcable but I find it interesting to see what people feel is morally acceptable in a situation like this, so where you could force someone to have an injection but it could traumatise them and really cause problems or agree to them not to have it but that causes a health risk. It's fascinating.
    Well, if that's the scenerio then I guess no. That still doesn't excuse the vast majority of people, however.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Well, if that's the scenerio then I guess no. That still doesn't excuse the vast majority of people, however.
    No it doesn't, I just wondered whether the objections of those who are phobic would be considered.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think vaccinations should be mandatory, but then if they catch some disease that could have been prevented people should blame themselves, not the health care system.
    But I probably feel this way because I still have a weird scar on my arm from a vaccination when I was two.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    No it doesn't, I just wondered whether the objections of those who are phobic would be considered.
    Fair enough.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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