Should vaccinations be mandatory?

Foxhound38

I'd have to say yes IMO - the nature of disease spread makes it a public health issue, not just a personal one. What do the germ spreading citizens of AH think?

Lawrence1895

As long as there are no side effects, why not?

Like the swine flu vaccination containing traces of mercury, so I heard

Mickeroo

I said no because I think you should have a choice, if someone decides not to get vaccinated for whatever reason it's their problem, it could most likely be the wrong choice but it's their choice.

MagicMarker

Mickeroo wrote: »

I said no because I think you should have a choice, if someone decides not to get vaccinated for whatever reason it's their problem, it could most likely be the wrong choice but it's their choice.

What about newborns?

Mickeroo

MagicMarker wrote: »

What about newborns?

Mandatory.

Foxhound38

Mickeroo wrote: »

I said no because I think you should have a choice, if someone decides not to get vaccinated for whatever reason it's their problem, it could most likely be the wrong choice but it's their choice.

But if enough people go unvaccinated and the virus mutates, it becomes everybodies problem surely?

The Davestator

New age idiots think the government are injecting nano bots or something into them so it'll never happen. But it should be mandatory.

Mickeroo

Foxhound38 wrote: »

But if enough people go unvaccinated and the virus mutates, it becomes everybodies problem surely?

Will that always happen?

I'm not against vaccination at all by the way, I just think an adult should have the choice not to get vaccinated if they so wish. What if it was made mandatory? would they send people to jail who refused? pin them down and force them?

It's not going to take long for this thread to deterioate into an anti-vaccination debate I'm sure :pac:

Javan

Mickeroo wrote: »

I said no because I think you should have a choice, if someone decides not to get vaccinated for whatever reason it's their problem, it could most likely be the wrong choice but it's their choice.

What about the prospect of disease eradication?
By introducing mandatory vaccination there is the prospect of reducing the incidence of some diseases to zero, worldwide.

According to the International Task Force for Disease Eradication the three diseases of Measles, Mumps and Rubella are all 'potentially eradicable'. Would you support mandatory MMR vaccination as part of an effort to rid the world of these diseases?

ref: http://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/news/health_publications/itfde/updated_disease_candidate_table.pdf

Standard Toaster

Vacations should be mantory. I need a good holiday away

squod

OP has absolute faith in people she doesn't know. In products not yet released and in the honesty of the organisations involved in vaccine production.

The company that released contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria confirmed Friday that the experimental product contained live H5N1 avian flu viruses....


On Friday, the company’s director of global bioscience communications confirmed what scientists have suspected. “It was live,” Christopher Bona said in an email.

No-one remember what Biotest.cz found in their labs a couple of years ago?

Mickeroo

Javan wrote: »

What about the prospect of disease eradication?
By introducing mandatory vaccination there is the prospect of reducing the incidence of some diseases to zero, worldwide.

According to the International Task Force for Disease Eradication the three diseases of Measles, Mumps and Rubella are all 'potentially eradicable'. Would you support mandatory MMR vaccination as part of an effort to rid the world of these diseases?

ref: http://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/news/health_publications/itfde/updated_disease_candidate_table.pdf

I would support it yes. But there's a lot of people who are extremely anti-vaccination, who believe all the proganda and unsupported claims that they're never able to back up. I think thats a huge sumbling block to mandatory vaccinations, it's also the reason why so many children still needlessly die of diseases like whooping cough.

There's also the eithical stand point that people should have the right to choose.

Javan

Mickeroo wrote: »

There's also the eithical stand point that people should have the right to choose.

I don't mean to pick on you Mickeroo, but that argument does not wash with me at all.

There are lots of things someone might want to choose to do that they do not have the right to do. All such 'rights' are limited by the society you live in, and that society will take rights away from you for all sorts of reasons.

You do not have the right to choose to injure someone. If you injure someone you could end up without the right to choose to go to the bathroom at night; you will be slopping out in a bucket instead.
Last week everyone had the right to choose to ignore someone talking about raping children. Next week some people may not have that right.
Right now I have the right to decide for myself that my sewage treatment system is working properly. By the end of the year I might not have that right. I'll have to pay someone else to inspect it and tell me it is working.

The rights of an individual to make choices are always limited by the needs of society, and the rules that benefit that society. Permanently eradicating a disease strikes me as a very big benefit to society, and the imposition on each individual to get a few injections is very small.

lawra

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8riAeGh48U

Nu-uuuuh....

Mickeroo

Javan wrote: »

I don't mean to pick on you Mickeroo, but that argument does not wash with me at all.

There are lots of things someone might want to choose to do that they do not have the right to do. All such 'rights' are limited by the society you live in, and that society will take rights away from you for all sorts of reasons.

You do not have the right to choose to injure someone. If you injure someone you could end up without the right to choose to go to the bathroom at night; you will be slopping out in a bucket instead.
Last week everyone had the right to choose to ignore someone talking about raping children. Next week some people may not have that right.
Right now I have the right to decide for myself that my sewage treatment system is working properly. By the end of the year I might not have that right. I'll have to pay someone else to inspect it and tell me it is working.

The rights of an individual to make choices are always limited by the needs of society, and the rules that benefit that society. Permanently eradicating a disease strikes me as a very big benefit to society, and the imposition on each individual to get a few injections is very small.

You're grand I get where you're coming from and I agree everyone should be vaccinated but I don't think anyone has the right to tell people what they must or must not put in their own bodies.

daithijjj

Mickeroo wrote: »

I would support it yes. But there's a lot of people who are extremely anti-vaccination, who believe all the proganda and unsupported claims that they're never able to back up. I think thats a huge sumbling block to mandatory vaccinations, it's also the reason why so many children still needlessly die of diseases like whooping cough.

There's also the eithical stand point that people should have the right to choose.

I cant beat the New England Journal of Medicine's take on these people.

People who "tend toward complete mistrust of government and manufacturers, conspiratorial thinking, denialism, low cognitive complexity in thinking patterns, reasoning flaws, and a habit of substituting emotional anecdotes for data", including people who range from those "unable to understand and incorporate concepts of risk and probability into science-grounded decision making" and those "who use deliberate mistruths, intimidation, falsified data, and threats of violence".

And in conclusion.........

"We believe that antivaccinationists have done significant harm to the public health. Ultimately, society must recognize that science is not a democracy in which the side with the most votes or the loudest voices gets to decide what is right."

A basic timeline for the case in the UK went like this.

1998 - 56 cases.

Controversy over vaccine resulting in drop of vacinations.

1st month of 2005 - 5000 + cases.


If thats not a case for the benefits out weighing the risks i dont know what is. The role of the media didnt help in the case of Wakefield in the UK either, basically insinuating that a 'rogue' researcher's findings were as substantial as the findings against.

Has to be mandatory imo.

Phill Ewinn

What a pile of crap that was ^^. No OP. Some people would take anything without a proven record of success or reasonable precautions.

My gut tells me it should be. Measles was rare up until 1998 or so, before the Andrew Wakefield MMR/Autism thing came to light. After this a lot of parents refused to vaccinate their children and measles epidemics popped up as a result. So while some people may feel that it's better for them to have the choice, it's better for society as a whole that everyone is protected.

On the other hand, mandatory vaccinations could open the door to many a legal quagmire. If someone has a serious reaction to an ingredient in a vaccine (rare but not impossible) then the state could possibly be held responsible for that person's illness or death.

My name is URL

Everything should be mandatory. The only way a society can progress is if all responsibility and decision making powers are handed over to the state.

Mickeroo

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

What a pile of crap that was ^^. No OP. Some people would take anything without a proven record of success or reasonable precautions.

I find it strange if you think MMR doesn't have a proven record of success.

dlofnep

No, they shouldn't be. The Government has no right to force them on anyone. It should be free choice.

AnneElizabeth

One of my friends got Narcolepsy from the Swine Flu vaccine, so no they should not be, because there are always side effects and they effect everyone differently. Plus too many lawsuits.

squod

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

One of my friends got Narcolepsy from the Swine Flu vaccine, so no they should not be, because there are always side effects and they effect everyone differently. Plus too many lawsuits.

Not surprised. Amount of fuhking around with that was unreal.

CreepingDeath

Foxhound38 wrote: »

I'd have to say yes IMO - the nature of disease spread makes it a public health issue, not just a personal one. What do the germ spreading citizens of AH think?

We have a constitutional right to refuse medical aid.

Vaccinations assume that nobody is naturally immune, it also flies in the face of natural selection. Those with a better immune system survive.

Look at that last bird flu epidemic, only those with "secondary conditions" died, ie. those weak/compromised people kept alive by drugs already.

opinion guy

Lars1916 wrote: »

As long as there are no side effects, why not?

Like the swine flu vaccination containing traces of mercury, so I heard

There are always side-effects -maybe not for everyone but for some people. There will always be some small subset of people of have adverse reactions to a vaccine. Therefore it shoudl not be mandatory.
In fact the very idea of making any medical intervention mandatory goes against both medical ethics, and modern medical practice.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Vaccinations assume that nobody is naturally immune, it also flies in the face of natural selection. Those with a better immune system survive.

Oh on!! Won't somebody please think of natural selection!!!!!
I really hope you were being sarcastic CreepingDeath. Hmmm then again with that username.....

southsiderosie

I think vaccines should be mandatory for childhood diseases (MMR, polio, etc). If adults want to be morons "choice", then that's their decision.

Haelium

CreepingDeath wrote: »

We have a constitutional right to refuse medical aid.

Vaccinations assume that nobody is naturally immune, it also flies in the face of natural selection. Those with a better immune system survive.

Look at that last bird flu epidemic, only those with "secondary conditions" died, ie. those weak/compromised people kept alive by drugs already.

But not all infections work like that. The 1918 influenza("Spanish flu") outbreak mainly effected healthy young adults. And yeah, we have an immune system, otherwise otherwise vaccinations wouldn't work.

As for natural selection, this would require most of us to die, we wouldn't progress for a few generations.

sock puppet

dlofnep wrote: »

No, they shouldn't be. The Government has no right to force them on anyone. It should be free choice.

I suppose the problem is that you're inflicting your poor decision on others through no fault of theirs. You could argue it's similar to drink driving in that sense.

Mickeroo

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

One of my friends got Narcolepsy from the Swine Flu vaccine, so no they should not be, because there are always side effects and they effect everyone differently. Plus too many lawsuits.

Not doubting your friend has narcolepsy or anything, but is there any solid proof that the swine flu vaccine caused it? If this wasn't a regular occurence worldwide in people who received the vaccination it's highly unlikely the vaccine was the actual cause...

starbelgrade

Vaccinations for what, exactly?

Bit of an open ended question OP - it's like asking 'should all doctors be trained?' without qualifying the question by stating what they should be trained in.

charlemont

Absolutely not.

Cú Giobach

CreepingDeath wrote: »

We have a constitutional right to refuse medical aid.
Vaccinations assume that nobody is naturally immune, it also flies in the face of natural selection. Those with a better immune system survive.
Look at that last bird flu epidemic, only those with "secondary conditions" died, ie. those weak/compromised people kept alive by drugs already.

I know you aren't totally serious with that comment it just made me think.

Our ability to manufacture vaccines is the product of natural selection/evolution and is part of our immune system, in the same way we have moved part of our digestive system outside our bodies ie cooking food and we have swapped a natural fur coat for the latest fashion.
A vaccine is just one of our evolved ways of dealing with disease, people who get ill by not getting vaccinated are aiding the spread of viruses and the more viruses there are, the more opportunities there are for harmful mutations to occur.
People who don't get vaccinated with say the MMR vaccine are endangering others, and in certain situations we accept (and even insist upon) limits to our freedom in order to safeguard the population at large, for example no one could claim their human rights were being infringed upon if they were quarantined for having the Ebola virus.

Some vaccines have been shown to be very effective and the quite small number of adverse reactions don't outweigh the good by a huge margin, consequently vaccines that have been shown to be effective with positive results for the vast majority, should be mandatory for the benefit of our species as a whole.

MagicMarker

Can the people who are saying no explain to me the difference in the state choosing to vaccinate the public and a parent choosing to vaccinate their newborn?

If people have the right to choose then surely a newborn has that right, and therefore should not be vaccinated until they are capable of making that decision? Unless of course a parent feels that that is not acceptable due to the health risks involved, but then isn't that the same logic the state would be using if they decided to make vaccinations mandatory?

stovelid

Mandatory for children's diseases for sure.

Adults should have the right to refuse them even though I don;t agree with them.

gubbie

lawra wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8riAeGh48U

Nu-uuuuh....

That's fake. They found clips later of her strolling perfectly along. See!. So is that "Doctor" that linked Autism to Vaccinations. I believe it went along the lines of "These kids all have autism... what links them... vaccinations! They've all been vaccinated". That was it. No other scientist has ever been able to prove these "findings"

I think it's incredibly selfish for mothers not to vaccinate their newborns. And stupid. It is a fact that vaccinations don't have a 100% success rate. Not everyone will be able to make the required antibodies, and that's why the rest of the population have to be vaccinated, to create a herd immunity for those who can't be vaccinated

Cabaal

lawra wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8riAeGh48U

Nu-uuuuh....

Scaremongering and lies

Think of the MUCH bigger picture when it comes to vaccinations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

Cabaal

gubbie wrote: »

So is that "Doctor" that linked Autism to Vaccinations.

What people like to ignore about this fool of a "Doctor" is that his research has since been retracted as its been identified as false

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8493753.stm

The medical journal which originally published the discredited research linking autism and MMR has now issued a full retraction of the paper.

The Lancet said it now accepted claims made by the researchers were "false".

Amazing how the vaccination causes autism nuts forget this

The "Doctor" has since been struck off the register - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8695267.stm

Guy:Incognito

Cabaal wrote: »

Scaremongering

Think of the MUCH bigger picture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

Poor Cabaal. Dont you know Penn and Teller (and most doctors, health workers etc) are all part of the big pharma machiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine

Cabaal

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Poor Cabaal. Dont you know Penn and Teller (and most doctors, health workers etc) are all part of the big pharma machiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine

sssshhhhh :pac::pac:

We should reserve the right to refuse vaccinations. I haven't had a vaccination since MMR in primary school and I haven't got any major illnesses since. People don't understand that viruses adapt and change so the vaccination only stops one strain of the virus. I don't see any real need for them tbh unless the person is infirm or is in a compromised medical state. If you're fit and healthy you shouldn't need a vaccination.

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

We should reserve the right to refuse vaccinations. I haven't had a vaccination since MMR in primary school and I haven't got any major illnesses since. People don't understand that viruses adapt and change so the vaccination only stops one strain of the virus. I don't see any real need for them tbh unless the person is infirm or is in a compromised medical state. If you're fit and healthy you shouldn't need a vaccination.

A good chunk of people who die from various diseases were fit and healthy beforehand.Doesnt help you much when your dead though.

noxqs

And in conclusion.........

"We believe that antivaccinationists have done significant harm to the public health. Ultimately, society must recognize that science is not a democracy in which the side with the most votes or the loudest voices gets to decide what is right."

Quoted for truth. People who try to discredit science, with nothing but anecdotes and loud voices should be shot.

Phill Ewinn

Cabaal wrote: »

What people like to ignore about this fool of a "Doctor" is that his research has since been retracted as its been identified as false

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8493753.stm



Amazing how the vaccination causes autism nuts forget this

The "Doctor" has since been struck off the register - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8695267.stm

Well d'uh! This isn't the UK if you haven't noticed there's a sea between us. That article was dated 2010. The Brittish Pime Minister Tony Blair had already banned mercury being used in MMR vaccines in his time in office. Amazing how many nuts choose to ''forget'' this.

stimpson

Absolutely. What could possibly go wrong?

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/Comment/article/593439

opinion guy

gubbie wrote: »

That's fake. They found clips later of her strolling perfectly along. See!. "

lol hilarious comment on the youtube thread for the vid:

youtube randomer wrote:

i got a flu shot the other day.. its terrible... everything is...BRITISH!!!! ELLO GOVNA!!! PIP PIP CHEERIO!!!noooooooo!!!!!!

Deleted User wrote: »

We should reserve the right to refuse vaccinations. I haven't had a vaccination since MMR in primary school and I haven't got any major illnesses since. People don't understand that viruses adapt and change so the vaccination only stops one strain of the virus. I don't see any real need for them tbh unless the person is infirm or is in a compromised medical state. If you're fit and healthy you shouldn't need a vaccination.

And you don't understand the difference between an individual outcome and group statistics.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

We should reserve the right to refuse vaccinations. I haven't had a vaccination since MMR in primary school and I haven't got any major illnesses since. People don't understand that viruses adapt and change so the vaccination only stops one strain of the virus. I don't see any real need for them tbh unless the person is infirm or is in a compromised medical state. If you're fit and healthy you shouldn't need a vaccination.

I knew a girl who was fit, healthy, and full of life until she contracted meningitis and was dead in a week. The first thing I did was go get myself vaccinated against meningitis. Being 'fit and healthy' doesn't mean you won't get ill.

I never had chicken pox as a child, and I don't think that a vaccine was available at the beginning of the 80s so my life is now in danger from children who haven't been vaccinated against it.

The benefits of vaccination far outweigh any negatives, especailly when the negatives include passing on infections and possibly killing people. Measles, which is a serious illness, was all but eradicated due to vaccination until this whole Vaccine/Autism scare meant that the hard of thinking stopped vaccinating and now children are dying unnecessarily because of nothing more than sheer, unadulterated stupidity.

Kevo

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see any real need for them tbh unless the person is infirm or is in a compromised medical state. If you're fit and healthy you shouldn't need a vaccination.

Fit and healthy people die of vaccinatable diseases too. The death rate may be far lower for people in their prime but it does happen.

Also, you are looking at the individual not the population. If you have a large proportion of the population vaccinated, the virus is unable to infect enough people to take hold and cause an epidemic. This has a protective effect on the population, including individuals who have not been vaccinated as their exposure is less likely. This assumes that enough people have been vaccinated to create this protective effect.

squod

stimpson wrote: »

Absolutely. What could possibly go wrong?

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/Comment/article/593439

70 kilos delivered for distribution. Only for the integrity of Biotest millions could have effected by this. People who push for mandatory vaccination are obviously either deluded or plain mad in the head.

ancapailldorcha

Kevo wrote: »

Fit and healthy people die of vaccinatable diseases too. The death rate may be far lower for people in their prime but it does happen.

Also, you are looking at the individual not the population. If you have a large proportion of the population vaccinated, the virus is unable to infect enough people to take hold and cause an epidemic. This has a protective effect on the population, including individuals who have not been vaccinated as their exposure is less likely. This assumes that enough people have been vaccinated to create this protective effect.

It's called herd immunity. If you don't vaccinate about 95% or more of the population, the pathogen you're trying to eradicate might mutate and circumvent the protection. Also, I know how quality control works. It's extremely rare contaminated stock gets out and it's usually recalled very quickly.

opinion guy

kylith wrote: »

I never had chicken pox as a child, and I don't think that a vaccine was available at the beginning of the 80s so my life is now in danger from children who haven't been vaccinated against it.

Ok calm down would you - less of the scaremongering
Varicella vaccination is not recommended as par tof the childhood vaccination schedule in Ireland as its generally not that serious a condition unless you are pregnant or immunocompromised. Are you pregnant or immunocomprimised ? Even if you are one of those people and you get exposed to chicken pox you can get passive immunisation within 96 hours of exposure.

Normal health children or adults are NOT indicated to receive varicella vaccination in Ireland.

If you are that concerned about it, exercise your freedom of choice and get yourself vaccinated (provided you have no contraindications)

Please don't come on here scaremongering about children unvaccinated against varicella putting your life in danger. They aren't.

National guidelines available here:
http://www.immunisation.ie/en/Downloads/NIACGuidelines/PDFFile_15491_en.pdf

outofsteam

Why does everyone seem to say yes to mandatory vaccinations for babies but no to mandatory vaccinations for children??