Turn on thread page Beta

B1352 - Compulsory Vaccination and Operation Bill 2018 watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    It should be the choice of the parents as to whether or not their children get vaccinations, not the state.
    This is one of the most incoherent things about libertarianism. Why should the parents, less likely to be rational, be the one able to place constraints on the child's liberty when they later gain agency?

    ---------

    Strong aye. However, 'statement of intent' should read 'order', statements of intent are not appropriate for delegated legislation.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    No, as well as what Jammy has said, I feel that it shouldn't be compulsory, but seems that this Bill is trying to avoid the parents stopping children having vaccinations. Instead, I think it should be that if a child is under 16, and wants the vaccine, they can without parental permission.

    The operations bit should probably have been a separate Bill if this does fail - though think it'll probably pass anyway.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JellyMilk)
    In response to your first point regarding high-risk areas and foreigners; yes, the current guidelines do recommend based on high risk areas to vaccinate against TB. However, there is always a risk that it will spread from immigrating families and contaminate an area. If we vaccinate those children, and the U.K.-born children, the risk of TB is greatly reduced and we will have taken steps to eradicate it,

    To the second point on eradicated diseases; the polio vaccine contains vaccines to many other infections, as stated in the bill. There is no reason not to include polio in that vaccine. Other rare illnesses on the list, such as Rotavirus, are very infective - using RV as an example, washing your hand never wipes the disease away completely, so vaccination is far more effective.
    You're working on a speculative basis, you're looking at best part of £100m a year (yeah, this bill I believe costs enough to cross the £0.1bn cost threshold that is generally used for costing) as prevention to a highly improbable event. I have a NICE report here that suggests that checking for latent TB in indivuduals around people infected with TB would cost a fraction of this, only £1.8m. Even if the incidence rate of TB increased to 100 per 100,000, 63% of those have the forms of TB in question, each patient has 6 contacts of whom 74% are tested with 34% are positive all of whom are treated the cost is still less than £20m, a fraction of the cost of your proposals.

    As for the polio having other vaccines included, they are also low incidence with only 7 cases of tetanus in the UK in 2013 (3 born post vaccine and 4 before) and in the case of diphtheria only 6 cases with toxigenic strains. The 4 cases of toxigenic C. diphtheriae were from patients that had travelled to endemic countries with at least one having been correctly vaccinated. The remaining two cases were of C ulceransone was contracted from a dog, the other is not stated in this report. None of these 6 cases experienced systemic complications and all 6 recovered and only one of the cases developed beyond cutaneous diphtheria.

    That leaves whooping cough which still has about 4,000 cases a year almost all in the 15+ age demographic after the vaccines become ineffective but then it is generally just an inconvenience rather than life threatening. Looking at laboratory confirmed cases for 2016 there were 154 cases in babies under 3 months, 46 for 3-5 months, 33 for 6-11 months, 117 in 1-4 years, 305 in 5-9 years, after that the vaccine is ineffective.

    In terms of looking at cost the booster has a coverage of 86.2% in England and for the place I've found on google the full cost is £95, to boost this to 100% would cost nearly £10m
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. I think any libertarian who votes aye should also take a look in the mirror, this slowly opens the door for big brother state to barge in.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    Nay
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tanqueray91)
    No, as well as what Jammy has said, I feel that it shouldn't be compulsory, but seems that this Bill is trying to avoid the parents stopping children having vaccinations. Instead, I think it should be that if a child is under 16, and wants the vaccine, they can without parental permission.

    The operations bit should probably have been a separate Bill if this does fail - though think it'll probably pass anyway.
    How exactly are you planning to ask an 8-week-old baby whether they want a vaccine?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    How exactly are you planning to ask an 8-week-old baby whether they want a vaccine?
    Can you not speak baby language?! Wow, this govt more ****ed than I thought.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Conceited)
    The problem is that you're looking at it as though it's a largely innocent personal choice as opposed to a risk and harm to the child, and possibly others too.
    Incredibly small risks, in fact probably much smaller than the risk imposed by many of the things you advocate for, it's not even like the abstention rate from any of the recommended vaccinations is high anyway, the only ones with high abstention rates are those which are not recommended (generally for good reason) such as TB where the risk in the majority of the country is too low to be cost effective
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    To me, an issue like this is in the same league as whether school should be mandatory or not. I am leaning on it being the duty of parents to ensure this is the case, for the sake of their children's livelihoods, which would mean legislation on this matter is not immoral. Therefore, I expect I will be voting in favour but I could be convinced otherwise.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    To me, an issue like this is in the same league as whether school should be mandatory or not. I am leaning on it being the duty of parents to ensure this is the case, for the sake of their children's livelihoods, which would mean legislation on this matter is not immoral. Therefore, I expect I will be voting in favour but I could be convinced otherwise.
    You oppose home schooling?
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Connor27)
    It should be the choice of the parents as to whether or not their children get vaccinations, not the state.
    Parents can be crunchy morons and be anti-vax if they want, but **** 'em. They don't, or at least shouldn't, have the right to deny another person healthcare because of their own stupidity.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Thank god. Not only are parents putting their own kids at risk, they are putting other people that can't receive it at risk.
    The media haven't exactly been the best for giving the medical backup to vaccines. Glad this is coming into play, definitely worth it.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You oppose home schooling?
    No, although as somebody who has been home schooled I highly doubt it is better than mainstream education in most cases, specifically with regard to development of social skills. Home schooling carries certain requirements and regulations to ensure it is of a sufficient standard. I do not support changing the status quo and allowing children to go without education at all because of the poor judgement of their parents; that is almost tantamount to child abuse in my view. The same remains true in my view with vaccinations, although it depends on the situation and I believe choice - whether of the parent or child - should be extended where the risk is not major.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I'm going to express a similar view to Connor on this one.

    I am certainly not an anti-vaxxer and strongly believe that parents should always ensure their child is vaccinated for their overall well-being, as well as to reduce the prevalence of disease in the population at large. However, I don't think the state should make not getting a child vaccinated a neglect charge with the possibility of imprisonment. That just seems too far to me.

    With regards to the surgery, I think if that were to be a separate bill then I'd be thinking about perhaps supporting it.

    As a final (side) note, I found it interesting that the cervical cancer injection was included on this list. That's the only vaccine I never had, for a few reasons. If this bill were law my parents would be facing a neglect charge for this!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    No, although as somebody who has been home schooled I highly doubt it is better than mainstream education in most cases, specifically with regard to development of social skills. Home schooling carries certain requirements and regulations to ensure it is of a sufficient standard. I do not support changing the status quo and allowing children to go without education at all because of the poor judgement of their parents; that is almost tantamount to child abuse in my view. The same remains true in my view with vaccinations, although it depends on the situation and I believe choice - whether of the parent or child - should be extended where the risk is not major.
    In many of these instances, in particular the ones I have actually looked at, the risk is not major.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    In many of these instances, in particular the ones I have actually looked at, the risk is not major.
    I will have another look at the debate when I am more awake. Perhaps that will convince me to abstain, although I would support mandatory vaccinations in cases of more significant risk.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    I will have another look at the debate when I am more awake. Perhaps that will convince me to abstain, although I would support mandatory vaccinations in cases of more significant risk.
    I suspect that if there were significant risks they already would be compulsory, TB isn't even recommended in most of the country because the risk is so low and measures that find and treat latent infections in those close to people with active infections would have the same effect for something like 3% of the cost.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CatusStarbright)
    I'm going to express a similar view to Connor on this one.

    I am certainly not an anti-vaxxer and strongly believe that parents should always ensure their child is vaccinated for their overall well-being, as well as to reduce the prevalence of disease in the population at large. However, I don't think the state should make not getting a child vaccinated a neglect charge with the possibility of imprisonment. That just seems too far to me.

    With regards to the surgery, I think if that were to be a separate bill then I'd be thinking about perhaps supporting it.

    As a final (side) note, I found it interesting that the cervical cancer injection was included on this list. That's the only vaccine I never had, for a few reasons. If this bill were law my parents would be facing a neglect charge for this!
    The current legislation for this (V984) says that you can be imprisoned or fined £1000 for missing a vaccine on the NHS recommended list. Changing the punishment to a neglect charge means that much of the punishment is left up to the judge. I highly doubt any reasonable judge would fine more than £250 for missing a HPV vaccine. If anything, this bill actually has a punishment that makes more sense.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I will be funding any additional costs tomorrow afternoon, when I have time. I neglected to do so originally, and I’m sorry about that.

    Thanks for letting me know Jammy Duel.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JellyMilk)
    The current legislation for this (V984) says that you can be imprisoned or fined £1000 for missing a vaccine on the NHS recommended list. Changing the punishment to a neglect charge means that much of the punishment is left up to the judge. I highly doubt any reasonable judge would fine more than £250 for missing a HPV vaccine. If anything, this bill actually has a punishment that makes more sense.
    Ah yes, I was drawing my comparisons from the situation in real life. My point still stands in my opinion.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 28, 2018
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

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.