Time allocated in Irish primary schools: 4% on science, 10% on religion.

mikhail

I'm reminded of this story:

... Meanwhile, there are two outbreaks of polio in Yemen and Indonesia. The strain of poliovirus originated – pay attention – in the Kano province in northern Nigeria... [A] couple of years ago Kano was the focal point of a Nigerian Muslim boycott of polio vaccination. Imams claimed that the vaccine was dangerous, poisoned, contaminated and part of a US plot to spread Aids or infertility in the Islamic world. Five Nigerian states boycotted it. Because, as any trendy MMR-dodging north London middle class humanities graduate couple with children would agree, just because vaccination has almost eradicated polio – a debilitating disease which as recently as 1988 was endemic in 125 countries – does not mean it is necessarily a good thing.

Source

doctoremma

mikhail wrote: »

I'm reminded of this story:

Source

Ben Goldacre is fab! Seen him talking live, utterly manic.

Gbear

Spotted this and thought it was relevant to the discussion (even though it disappeared off the front page a few days ago and even though we veered waayyy off topic )

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2012/09/court-rules-failure-to-vaccinate-children-not-free-exercise-of-religion/

The District Court found that “the mere assertion of a religious belief . . . does not automatically trigger First Amendment protections,” and that “it has long been recognized that local authorities may constitutionally mandate vaccinations.” The latter cited the 1905 case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which set forth that “real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own . . . regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

The District Court also cited 1944′s Prince vs. Massachusetts, which found that “The right to practice religion freely does not include parental liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease.” (Emphasis added.)

I'm somewhat puzzled by it all. I'm fairly sure there are plenty of ill-informed parents that have jumped on the autism bandwagon and not vaccinated their children in the US.

Can anyone explain the discrepancy? Why was this mother forced to vaccinate based on religion but others weren't based purely on ignorance?

Sycopat

Gbear wrote: »

I'm somewhat puzzled by it all. I'm fairly sure there are plenty of ill-informed parents that have jumped on the autism bandwagon and not vaccinated their children in the US.

Can anyone explain the discrepancy? Why was this mother forced to vaccinate based on religion but others weren't based purely on ignorance?

From what I understand (which isn't much) individual states have different local legislature and judiciaries. Some states allow people to refuse vaccinations on religious grounds, other states don't.
Ohio apparently doesn't.

recedite

Social services intervened with this dysfunctional family, and took custody of the kids due to "neglect" of the children. You can be sure that their not bothering to vaccinate was one of the least aspects of the neglect.
Subsequently the mother tried to overturn the new regime or plan put in place by the social workers, on the somewhat spurious basis that it conflicted with the family religion.
If the kids had not been taken into custody, I don't think anybody would be putting pressure on the parents to vaccinate.
Its interesting though that some States do have a legal basis for mandatory vaccinations. Presumably if some deadly disease broke out, they would impose mandatory vaccinations.
The situation in Ireland is a bit vague AFAIK. There is an "implied" right to "bodily integrity" in the Constitution, ie your right to look after your own body, and some guy once tried to use this to stop them flouridating the water. That case failed.