Secularists urge no vote on childrens rights referendum

mikhail

... also highlighted two rights of children already in the Constitution; the right to a free primary education and the right to attend national school without receiving a religious education. The State had yet to vindicate these rights, they said...

More.

Obliq

Oh dear. Is it wise? Can they not just publically call for legislation to be included on these grounds instead of getting the backs up of the entire country? Where were they and how loud were they shouting when the legislation was being drawn up? They don't seem to have a huge problem with the content - just what has been left out of it. There are better PR ways to go about this.

I'm not going with them just to set myself in argument with everyone who agrees with the rest of the ammendment

Daftendirekt

Is there some other agenda here?

It always seems fishy when some single-issue group pops up right before a referendum to make some half-baked argument for a No vote.

I'd understand why Youth Defence types might oppose granting more legal protection to children (because FAMILY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVERYTHING!) but it seems odd to me that these guys are (or were) secularist campaigners.

Pushtrak

I've encountered people who advocated voting no on the grounds it doesn't go far enough. I tried explaining it's about stepping stones, and progress is a good thing, and can be the basis of more progress. Giving an impression something of this sort is undesirable doesn't seem an overly sensible approach. Though, as always, I'm open to a good counter argument.

Sulla Felix

Pushtrak wrote: »

I've encountered people who advocated voting no on the grounds it doesn't go far enough. I tried explaining it's about stepping stones, and progress is a good thing, and can be the basis of more progress. Giving an impression something of this sort is undesirable doesn't seem an overly sensible approach. Though, as always, I'm open to a good counter argument.

That's the kind of talk that got the Big Fella killed! /shakes his fist.

Anyway, I won't be voting since I won't be in the country at the time but I'd be voting yes in the vain hope that this referendum would be the start of a root and branch reform of familial law generally.
I do have some sympathy with the idea of voting no on the grounds that it doesn't go far enough. In most other modern countries my aforementioned hope wouldn't be so vain. I doubt the needed legislation to properly administer this amendment will even be properly undertaken after it's passed.

expectationlost

good to have something to debate

Victor

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Is there some other agenda here?

Insofar as they are advocating actually enforcing rights as opposed to the typical lip service.

Obliq

Victor wrote: »

Insofar as they are advocating actually enforcing rights as opposed to the typical lip service.

Yes, and that's commendable. But the call for this should maybe have been started when the gov. were actually drawing up the legislation?

Plus the statement that "The amendment was dangerous..... adding that where any State had gone over the top on intervention it had lead to disasters." - in the articles I've read, no 'disasters' have been cited, and tbh, they come across as disagreeing with more rights for children (even though they qualify it with a call for actual action on the "two rights" for free education and national school without receiving a religious education)

It's true, I'm sure, that half the proposed legislation is unnecessary - but the part about it becoming lawful that a child of married parents can be adopted and that foster children in these situations can have a say in their futures is an excellent one though IMO.

Also “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” is a good one, coming from humanists. To me, they seem as out of touch as the church, in terms of trying to persuade people of their ideas, even if I do agree they are worthy issues, and that's why my first reaction was one of "oh dear, really?"
Not sure they're doing themselves or the Humanist Association any favours here.

I reckon they need some PR people to translate the high-brow speak to a media friendly spin.

expectationlost

don't think dick spicer is part of the HAI anymore is he. he's clearly not speaking for them

Victor

Obliq wrote: »

Plus the statement that "The amendment was dangerous..... adding that where any State had gone over the top on intervention it had lead to disasters." - in the articles I've read, no 'disasters' have been cited, and tbh, they come across as disagreeing with more rights for children

Rights for children need to be separated from rights for the state - all those orphanages, industrial schools and Magdalene laundries were state-type interventions that didn't have the interests of children at heart.

Obliq

expectationlost wrote: »

don't think dick spicer is part of the HAI anymore is he. he's claerly not speaking for them

Well, thanks for clearing that up for me! Wasn't clear at all, no. What do you think about what else I have said?

Obliq

Victor wrote: »

Rights for children need to be separated from rights for the state - all those orphanages, industrial schools and Magdalene laundries were state-type interventions that didn't have the interests of children at heart.

No, it's true they didn't. And the state handed over the running of them to various religions (we know how well that worked out) essentially passing the buck as it has done on many human rights issues since the beginning of the state. Nothing new there - and yes that is an issue here as well, as can be seen from the gov reluctance to put into practice the legislation that is already in place.
It's the tone and the lack of explanation (like the one you have just given) that puts me at odds with "Two Rights" approach, and I'm concerned that their genuinely worthy questions will be lost to most people.

expectationlost

can't find any web presence to get more detail, he's been on the radio this morning, http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/two-rights-now-launch-referendum-no-campaign-571075.html


here's a letter http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/0926/opinion/primary-school-education-failure-208780.html mostly about the lack of non-religious education


"The fact of the matter is, the state can already intervene if there is abuse of children. Why is she pedalling this over the top nonsense?"

i wonder why he thinks she is... well it comes down to money at the end of the day for the state

Obliq

expectationlost wrote: »

can't find any web presence to get more detail, he's been on the radio this morning

And that's exactly why I say he (they) needs better PR. Thanks for the links

Zamboni

They do have a point.
I don't think they will make a difference though.

Onesimus

Here is another site with the top ten reasons to say ''No'' to the childrens referendum.

10 Reasons to vote No in the Children's Rights Referendum

1/ Your legal right under Article 42.5 of the Irish Constitution to decide "Best Interests" for your own child will be handed over to the State. Parents will be reduced to Caregivers under the UNCRC.

2/ Your child can be placed for adoption against your will. You will not need to be accused or convicted of any crime and the arbitrary decision can be made my one person. The entire process will take place in secret Family Courts and you will be gagged and prevented from speaking out.

3/The State can decide for example to vaccinate every child in Ireland, and the parent, and even the child have no say in the matter. You do not need to be consulted or give permission. Joan Burton has already hinted that Child Benefit will be tied into vaccination records, this could be extended to school admission.

4/ The State can decide to give give Birth Control to children of any age, even if they are below the Age of Consent. The State can bring children to other countries for abortions without parental consent and even if the child disagrees. (X case, C Case, D case)

5/ The UN and the EU can make any laws for children without consent of the Irish Government if it wishes. This allows unelected people in the EU and UN to write Irish Laws without prior notice. This removes what little Sovereignty Ireland has as a nation.

6/ The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is no mere statement of altruism, it is a legally binding Human Rights Treaty which, if Article 42 is changed, will allow unelected people in the EU and UN to re-write Irish Law. Fully ratifying the UNCRC will now make every other treaty that we have ratified also apply to all Irish Children. The entire landscape of Irish Law may need to be rewritten.

7/The UNCRC does not give Irish children any privileges they did not possess before. Parents have always vindicated the rights for their child. As children are not autonomous, the State can decide anything even if the child disagrees. Effectively, this also removes children's rights.

8/ The "Best Interest Principle" of the UN is nothing more than a slogan. Was it in the "Best Interests" of the 260 who died in Irish State "Care", or the 500 who went missing and many were later found to have been trafficked into prostitution and slavery? We believe if Ireland is to have a World-Class Child Protection System that "Best Interests" should be replaced with "to the Measured and Demonstrated Benefit of the Child" and it will need to be measured and demonstrated. Despite 760 children missing or dead in a decade, nobody has ever been held accountable. In the Baby P case 2 doctors were struck off and 4 social workers fired, in Ireland 260 dead, 500 missing and nobody was punished.

9/ The UNCRC only gives "Rights" to children but there is no obligation on the Government to comply. Children in developing nations whose Governments have ratified the UNCRC have the right to food and water and yet children are dying. Children are executed in some countries and the UNCRCC does not protect them, only their "Rights". Many of the countries that have ratified the UNCRC allow for Child Soldiers, Child Forced Marriage, the Death Penalty for Children and even Female Genital Mutilation. The UNCRC does not protect children, their parents protect them.

10/ The question we are being asked here is "do you trust the Irish State, the UN and the EU to make decisions for your children when your parental rights have been eliminated?" If you are not 100% sure you must vote no.http://www.aps.ie/page8.php

robindch

Onesimus wrote: »

Here is another site with the top ten reasons to say ''No'' to the childrens referendum.

And with no less an intellect than Kathy Sinnott involved, one can only do the decent thing and vote for the other side.

The point about vaccines, btw, is worth noting. At the moment, the state allows parents to refuse to vaccinate their kids while also allowing them to attend school, where unvaccinated kids are a threat to the health and welfare of other students. I believe the USA won't let kids into a school unless they can present a full vaccination record, and good on them for doing so.

Onesimus

And with no less an intellect than Kathy Sinnott involved, one can only do the decent thing and vote for the other side.

Criticism of a persons intelligence is not a valid argument why we should vote Yes.

The point about vaccines, btw, is worth noting. At the moment, the state allows parents to refuse to vaccinate their kids while also allowing them to attend school, where unvaccinated kids are a threat to the health and welfare of other students. I believe the USA won't let kids into a school unless they can present a full vaccination record, and good on them for doing so.

Its the ''not consulting the parents'' that worries me Robin. Imagine not being consulted about your child receiving a vaccination and when? You've no control over it, you are just a ''caregiver'' now and the state is the ''parent'' who decides what is in the best interests of your children.

robindch

Onesimus wrote: »

Criticism of a persons intelligence is not a valid argument why we should vote Yes.

I didn't say anything about Sinnott's intelligence, though I can understand that you might be concerned. I did say that if Sinnott is in favour of something, then the decent thing to do is to vote in the other direction.

Onesimus wrote: »

Imagine not being consulted about your child receiving a vaccination and when? You've no control over it, you are just a ''caregiver'' now and the state is the ''parent'' who decides what is in the best interests of your children.

Given that there are plenty of irresponsible and uninformed parents around who refuse to follow basic medical advice in respect of vaccines, it's appropriate that the state reserves the right to step in and disallow potentially infectious children into schools where they can infect the children of parents who do follow medical advice.

What actual difference would a yes vote make? What legislation is waiting to be passed that would be unconstitutional now?

Onesimus

I didn't say anything about Sinnott's intelligence, though I can understand that you might be concerned. I did say that if Sinnott is in favour of something, then the decent thing to do is to vote in the other direction.

Its still indirectly criticizing her intelligence and this critical statement does not give any argument as to why we should vote ''YES'' to the referendum.

Given that there are plenty of irresponsible and uninformed parents around who refuse to follow basic medical advice in respect of vaccines, it's appropriate that the state reserves the right to step in and disallow potentially infectious children into schools where they can infect the children of parents who do follow medical advice.

You made note of the U.S who have schools that require parents to have a record to show their children have had vaccinations. But these schools don't take control of that parents decision to vaccine their child without permission or even notifying them of it. Thats what the state will do if this is passed. They will have the ''control'' of not having to inform parents or even give them notification of vaccination. The state is in control and not the parents and that's not good.

robindch

Onesimus wrote: »

Its still indirectly criticizing her intelligence

As above, I recognize and approve of your concern with Sinnott's degree of intelligence.

Onesimus wrote: »

and this critical statement does not give any argument as to why we should vote ''YES'' to the referendum.

Because it adds to the Constitution, the requirement that the legislature and courts should act in the best interests of children. At the moment that's not the case, as years of institutional and clerical abuse at the hands of the religious have demonstrated. It does not therefore surprise me that the religious appear to be the only people lined up against it.

Onesimus wrote: »

But these schools don't take control of that parents decision to vaccine their child without permission or even notifying them of it. Thats what the state will do if this is passed.

Can you please back up this quite extraordinary claim, please, with an attributable quote from Enda Kenny that following the nation's approval of this Amendment, that the government intends to vaccinate all children regardless of the wishes of the parents, and without informing them either beforehand or afterwards?

Victor

Onesimus wrote: »

They will have the ''control'' of not having to inform parents or even give them notification of vaccination.

What is your basis for saying this?

The quote from the website comes across as a slightly paranoid sleight at the EU and UN.

Daftendirekt

Deleted User wrote: »

What actual difference would a yes vote make? What legislation is waiting to be passed that would be unconstitutional now?

I'm not sure that there is any legislation waiting to be passed that would currently be unconstitutional.

I think the point is to force the state to increase the protection granted to children through law.

muppeteer

Victor wrote: »

What is your basis for saying this?

The quote from the website comes across as a slightly paranoid sleight at the EU and UN.

The EU, that shower! Sure ever since Nice I've been out guarding the local abortionplex since I was conscripted into the EU army. Feckers only pay me 1.65 an hour too. The cheek! Of course they'll vaccinate everyone against their will.



It's lazy I know but I've had my fun, and that's all that matters:)

Daftendirekt

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I'm not sure that there is any legislation waiting to be passed that would currently be unconstitutional.

I think the point is to force the state to increase the protection granted to children through law.

So what will changing the constitution achieve in this case? What's going to suddenly change when the new article is inserted?

Onesimus

robindch wrote: »

As above, I recognize and approve of your concern with Sinnott's degree of intelligence.Because it adds to the Constitution, the requirement that the legislature and courts should act in the best interests of children. At the moment that's not the case, as years of institutional and clerical abuse at the hands of the religious have demonstrated. It does not therefore surprise me that the religious appear to be the only people lined up against it.Can you please back up this quite extraordinary claim, please, with an attributable quote from Enda Kenny that following the nation's approval of this Amendment, that the government intends to vaccinate all children regardless of the wishes of the parents, and without informing them either beforehand or afterwards?

Nobody said they will do that with the vaccination but ....It gives them the POWER to do so if the want. I don't want to give them that power so I'm voting NO on November 10th.

Hey...Have you a qoute from Enda Kenny saying he WONT do that with vaccination? you sure do have a lot of trust in a government who has failed children and this nation as a whole to then go ahead and let them take care of your children and decide for YOU whats in their best interests whenever they so wish to do so.

Changing 42.5 means they can do what they like Rob and all because it's what they deem to be in the childs ''best interests''.

Sulla Felix

robindch wrote: »

I believe the USA won't let kids into a school unless they can present a full vaccination record, and good on them for doing so.

Not quite, at least not anymore. Several states and local authorities have passed laws allowing concientious objection. Was originally tied to religious belief but a couple of court cases broadened the allowances.
Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All. Good book on the subject with a focus on US and UK though we get an ignominious mention about the 90s mmr scare.

robindch

Onesimus wrote: »

Have you a qoute from Enda Kenny saying he WONT do that with vaccination?

You're the one making the claim that this is a legitimate risk -- it's for you to back up this claim with evidence, or to retract your claim.

Corkfeen

Onesimus wrote: »

Nobody said they will do that with the vaccination but ....It gives them the POWER to do so if the want. I don't want to give them that power so I'm voting NO on November 10th.

Hey...Have you a qoute from Enda Kenny saying he WONT do that with vaccination? you sure do have a lot of trust in a government who has failed children and this nation as a whole to then go ahead and let them take care of your children and decide for YOU whats in their best interests whenever they so wish to do so.

Changing 42.5 means they can do what they like Rob and all because it's what they deem to be in the childs ''best interests''.

The exact amendment states:

In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.
http://www.dcya.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=2334

It's absurd that you think that the government has such resources to actually exert such extreme measures regularly. The amendment exists in particular for instances when the government need to act but are unable to do so, for example the Roscommon Incest case, this would be a clear example of an exceptional case where the parents should not retain custody of their child. It's not always within the best interests of a child to remain with their biological parents.

This is somewhat reminiscent of the far more dominant anti divorce campaign but instead of the government 'destroying the institute of marriage', they are intent on destroying the rights of parents. :pac: Many of the claims that are made in those ten points are so outlandish..... In fact, many consider it to be a fairly minor amendment in contrast to what it could have done.

joseph brand

Onesimus wrote: »

Nobody said they will do that with the vaccination but ....It gives them the POWER to do so if the want. I don't want to give them that power so I'm voting NO on November 10th.

Hey...Have you a qoute from Enda Kenny saying he WONT do that with vaccination? you sure do have a lot of trust in a government who has failed children and this nation as a whole to then go ahead and let them take care of your children and decide for YOU whats in their best interests whenever they so wish to do so.

Changing 42.5 means they can do what they like Rob and all because it's what they deem to be in the childs ''best interests''.

Onesimus

joseph brand wrote: »

The difference here is this, as Catholics we are ''invited'' to participate in Catholicism and in so doing we accept all we are taught and live it. we are not ''forced'' to participate like we are by the state if we vote Yes to this referendum. The Church are not the parents of my child, neither is the state the parents of my child, but they will be if I sign my right away to be a parent and act in the best interests of my children. Thats what you fail to recognize.

The state however will be the one doing all the ''forcing'' on the Irish nation because they deem it to be all in the best interests of the child.

The state are not the parents of my child. I am. I refuse to sign away my right to be a parent to the state on November 10th and will be voting NO.

Corkfeen

Onesimus wrote: »

The state are not the parents of my child. I am. I refuse to sign away my right to be a parent to the state on November 10th and will be voting NO.

Will you be leaving the state if it's a 'yes' vote? :pac: Bit of a genuine question as you believe that you'll be losing your rights as a parent.

pauldla

Onesimus wrote: »

The difference here is this, as Catholics we are ''invited'' to participate in Catholicism and in so doing we accept all we are taught and live it. we are not ''forced'' to participate like we are by the state if we vote Yes to this referendum. The Church are not the parents of my child, neither is the state the parents of my child, but they will be if I sign my right away to be a parent and act in the best interests of my children. Thats what you fail to recognize.

The state however will be the one doing all the ''forcing'' on the Irish nation because they deem it to be all in the best interests of the child.

The state are not the parents of my child. I am. I refuse to sign away my right to be a parent to the state on November 10th and will be voting NO.

Is that an ironic use of "invited"? I was never invited to be a Catholic, I was told I was a Catholic. Officially, I still am a Catholic, and it seems there is not much I can do about it.

Is the key phrase in your post not 'and act in the best interests of my children'? Your right to be a parent is not going to be taken away, as far as I can make out.

folan

Onesimus wrote: »

The state however will be the one doing all the ''forcing'' on the Irish nation because they deem it to be all in the best interests of the child.

the state has been elected by the people to represent them. the state has a duty to look out for every citizen, be them of voting age or not.

currently, there are a minority of parents who do nothing in the interests of their children, but in their own interests. there are a minority parents who have children to boost their incomes by claiming CA.

in cases like these, the state has very few powers to work in the benefit of the child.

Dades

Onesimus wrote: »

The difference here is this, as Catholics we are ''invited'' to participate in Catholicism and in so doing we accept all we are taught and live it. we are not ''forced'' to participate like we are by the state if we vote Yes to this referendum.

Not really on topic but I'm reminded that a lot of children that are forced to participate in Catholicism by the church and the State.

expectationlost

remember when this thread was about Secularists urge no vote on childrens rights referendum

Obliq

folan wrote: »

there are a minority parents who have children to boost their incomes by claiming CA.

Yes, remember what this thread was about, but how do you let this go unquestioned?
I don't think I've seen a more stupid comment, even on the abortion thread.

To folan: I've never called for a citation before, but I am now. That's pretty outrageous tbh, when child benefit to me spells the difference between me heating the house for my children or not. Get a grip on reality why don't ya :mad:

folan

Obliq wrote: »

To folan: I've never called for a citation before, but I am now. That's pretty outrageous tbh, when child benefit to me spells the difference between me heating the house for my children or not. Get a grip on reality why don't ya :mad:

Obliq,

Agreed. What I said was wrong, and stupid. I apologise because when i re-read what I said even i thought what is there was insulting.

to try and clear up what I meant, and to be sure that there is no confusion, what i meant to reference was the following type of mentality, and to stop it at all costs, and ensure that such things are done for the childs benifit only.

To demonstrate what i mean, i offer a pretty recent example of the type of attitude which I believe exists to child benefit:

http://www.thejournal.ie/centra-childrens-allowance-apology-withdrawal-beer-offer-508398-Jul2012/

and a thread from boards more recently where it is said

Got a call today from a traveler girl in Cashel which is a town very close to me. Could hear a load of kids screaming/beating/cursing at each other in the background. She seemed very interested in it but turned around and said can you hold it until child benefit day

found here

What you have said is true.

I am against the mentality and abuse of childrens allowance, which is abuse itself.

Apologies again.

Obliq

folan wrote: »

Obliq,

Agreed. What I said was wrong, and stupid. I apologise because when i re-read what I said even i thought what is there was insulting.

to try and clear up what I meant, and to be sure that there is no confusion, what i meant to reference was the following type of mentality, and to stop it at all costs, and ensure that such things are done for the childs benifit only.

To demonstrate what i mean, i offer a pretty recent example of the type of attitude which I believe exists to child benefit:

http://www.thejournal.ie/centra-childrens-allowance-apology-withdrawal-beer-offer-508398-Jul2012/

and a thread from boards more recently where it is said


found here

What you have said is true.

I am against the mentality and abuse of childrens allowance, which is abuse itself.

Apologies again.

Alright - your apology was gracious, so that's good, ta. However

a) I think that's possibly the first time the attitude of "they're having kids for the child benefit" has ever been proven by citing Centra's insane sales pitch. Y'know, after I have clothed (2nd hand), fed (everything from scratch - no instant meals), washed (with yes, paid for hot water) and heated (the CB also covers petrol for the chainsaw, luckily) my children, I bloody well deserve a glass of wine. Anyone who is getting CB is supposed to spend it on the children, but it really gets my goat when apparently only those who don't depend on the CB aren't called into question as to how they spend it - the attitude being "Well, you smoke and drink and we're paying for that, so it's not on" compared to "Well, you smoke, drink and work, so we won't judge you on how you spend the CB".

b) Can you perhaps tell me how in this day and age a tv isn't a necessity when rearing a bunch of small children? I would be out like a shot with the CB if mine broke (as it would even take priority over all the phone/electric/gas/heating/car bills). I'm sure there are some who live without television quite happily, but my kids have an xbox and favourite cartoons. Because I am poor, I should do without one? Again, it gets right up my nose when the only lump sum that is available for big stuff like bills, or breakdowns of equipment is "meant for the children". Yes, and that's who it goes to via the effective living of my life as a parent. Ever try running a home with children in it without electricity? I make no f**king apologies for spending CB whichever way I see fit as a parent, and I'm a damn good one.

c) Goes something like - the amount of times I have heard how people have children for the CB makes me want to spew.

End of. Please learn something from this. Now I'll get back to the OP.

Victor

folan wrote: »

I am against the mentality and abuse of childrens allowance, which is abuse itself.

I think the example of the TV demonstrates that she wasn't willing to buy the TV and leave the children go hungry if she didn't have the money just yet.

Just because someone buys XYZ on the day they receive a particular payment doesn't mean that payment is always and/or exclusively put towards XYZ.

dunkster

I would find it impossible to trust our inept and corrupt government or the war mongering U.N. with the fates of our children. The proposed amendment does too little and gives our untrustworthy state [happy to lie and give our resources & sovereignty away] and outside organizations [U.N. E.U. happy to allow U.S. to bomb Bosnia Libya and anywhere the U.S has issues with]. Promises are made and broken shamelessly by the above so why would we believe that our leaders have pure altruism in mind when it comes to our children. I will be voting no for the sake of our children and parents. It will be voted through, as we the sheeple will believe the utter rubbish spewed out by our compromised main media sources on most topics. Thanks for sites like Boads.ie, it's a great venting resource and great entertainment. Peace.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

Given that there are plenty of irresponsible and uninformed parents around who refuse to follow basic medical advice in respect of vaccines, it's appropriate that the state reserves the right to step in and disallow potentially infectious children into schools where they can infect the children of parents who do follow medical advice.

Erm, if the vaccine works, how would the other children be infected?
But that's just in passing. If you really don't know why consent is needed for medical treatment, you're not going to learn it now if you've nailed your colours to the mast on with a silly argument.

What I'm finding is this referendum is revealing that a lot of people don't really comprehend what the nature of a State is, this peculiar beast which simultaneously limits and upholds our rights.

In any event, I'm voting no as a case has not been made for Constitutional reform - pretty much like what Mr Spicer is saying.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Erm, if the vaccine works, how would the other children be infected?

That right there is why your opinion is less valid than others'.

Gbear

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Erm, if the vaccine works, how would the other children be infected?

There's a thing called herd immunity.

Once you immunise above a certain % of children, those that can't take the vaccine (for health reasons) are effectively kept safe because the level of immunisation is so high.

If you have too many people not getting vaccinated it not only puts them at risk but also those who can't get vaccinated.

dunkster wrote: »

I would find it impossible to trust our inept and corrupt government or the war mongering U.N. with the fates of our children.

The war mongering UN? What. The. ****.

If there's any criticism of the UN it's that they're not war mongering enough and haven't stepped in quickly enough in places like Syria and Libya and are hamstrung into inaction resulting in the deaths of thousands.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Erm, if the vaccine works, how would the other children be infected?

Because the vaccine for measles, for example, is around 85% effective which is why you take that particular one in two doses, separated by a period of time. Also, a certain percentage of people can't take the vaccine for various reasons (age, compromised immunity, allergy etc) and other people need to be aware of this as they're at high-risk of infection. And, as gbear points out, you need a vaccination rate of at least 95% -- herd immunity -- to ensure that the disease can't propagate in a population, once an infection starts.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Deleted User wrote: »

That right there is why your opinion is less valid than others'.

And I've the same vote - it's a bitch, isn't it.

Gbear wrote: »

There's a thing called herd immunity.

robindch wrote: »

<...> a certain percentage of people can't take the vaccine for various reasons <...> And, as gbear points out, you need a vaccination rate of at least 95% -- herd immunity -- to ensure that the disease can't propagate in a population, once an infection starts.

Ah, yeah, I'm aware of herd immunity. I'm not even particularly saying that vaccination is a bad idea - the remark you are focussing on is, predictably, the side issue where I'm pointing to a careless justification for advocating a yes.

The key issue is that, if this referendum weakens the need for medical practioners to obtain consent, it's a bad thing and we need look no further for a reason to vote "no". We already have provision that protects children from gonzo decisions by parents; we even have a decision that allows doctors to force medical treatment on adults, on grounds of the child's right not to be deprived of parents.

That said, I haven't generally seen advocates of a Yes vote justifying the amendment on grounds of the need to secure herd immunity by compulsion. I'm not sure it's an argument that would float, outside of quite limited groups of people. I think ye need to take a step back, and think it out again. "Kathy Synnott is agin it, so it must be good" is not a sound principle on this occassion.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The key issue is that, if this referendum weakens the need for medical practioners to obtain consent, it's a bad thing and we need look no further for a reason to vote "no".

The referendum and the wording assert that the state should consider the needs of children first. That's a reasonable thing to do, given that there's no such guarantee in the constitution at the moment and legislation and practice tends to favor "family" first, then mothers, fathers and kids in that order.

It is certainly possible to spin the wording to suggest that children will be forced to vaccinate, but, without checking, I imagine that this interpretation is probably compatible with the existing constitution too. In either case, events over the last few years suggest that the law doesn't have any major problem forcing medical procedures upon unwilling patients.

So, I'm going to call this item a complete red herring. Basically, exactly what you'd expect from Ms Sinnott.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

The referendum and the wording assert that the state should consider the needs of children first. That's a reasonable thing to do, given that there's no such guarantee in the constitution at the moment and legislation and practice tends to favor "family" first, then mothers, fathers and kids in that order.

That's not actually the situation. There actually isn't any constitutional block that obstructs childrens' rights; there's no real need for this referendum. The only concrete difference is that it could make it slightly easier for a tiny amount of children to be adopted. But, that said, adoption outside the natural family is a practice that belongs back in the Jurassic period; somewhere like 1950s Ireland, where you've a steady supply of frightened, preganant, young women with no access to abortion.

robindch wrote: »

It is certainly possible to spin the wording to suggest that children will be forced to vaccinate, but, without checking, I imagine that this interpretation is probably compatible with the existing constitution too. In either case, events over the last few years suggest that the law doesn't have any major problem forcing medical procedures upon unwilling patients.
So, I'm going to call this item a complete red herring. Basically, exactly what you'd expect from Ms Sinnott.

Well, in fairness, you did give it legs. Incidently, the "PKU" case means we can be pretty sure that the present wording means that doctors do need to obtain consent from rational, dutiful, parents before delivering routine medical treatment to children. Which is exactly as it should be.

Once you change the Constitution, it raises some doubt over previous case law. That's why we shouldn't prick around with the Constitution without sound reason. And this is exactly what's happening now - the Constitution is being pricked with, for no sound reason.

oldrnwisr

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And I've the same vote - it's a bitch, isn't it.Ah, yeah, I'm aware of herd immunity. I'm not even particularly saying that vaccination is a bad idea - the remark you are focussing on is, predictably, the side issue where I'm pointing to a careless justification for advocating a yes.

The key issue is that, if this referendum weakens the need for medical practioners to obtain consent, it's a bad thing and we need look no further for a reason to vote "no". We already have provision that protects children from gonzo decisions by parents; we even have a decision that allows doctors to force medical treatment on adults, on grounds of the child's right not to be deprived of parents.

That said, I haven't generally seen advocates of a Yes vote justifying the amendment on grounds of the need to secure herd immunity by compulsion. I'm not sure it's an argument that would float, outside of quite limited groups of people. I think ye need to take a step back, and think it out again. "Kathy Synnott is agin it, so it must be good" is not a sound principle on this occassion.

OK, just a quick recap of the sequence of events here. This whole line of arguments began with the rather silly list of fears posted by Onesimus which included:

Onesimus wrote: »

3/The State can decide for example to vaccinate every child in Ireland, and the parent, and even the child have no say in the matter. You do not need to be consulted or give permission. Joan Burton has already hinted that Child Benefit will be tied into vaccination records, this could be extended to school admission.

to which Robin replied:

robindch wrote: »

The point about vaccines, btw, is worth noting. At the moment, the state allows parents to refuse to vaccinate their kids while also allowing them to attend school, where unvaccinated kids are a threat to the health and welfare of other students. I believe the USA won't let kids into a school unless they can present a full vaccination record, and good on them for doing so.

Now, while I agree with you that there is some provision for this situation already through the Child Care Act:

18.—(1) Where, on the application of a health board with respect to a child who resides or is found in its area, the court is satisfied that—

(b) the child's health, development or welfare has been or is being avoidably impaired or neglected, or

(c) the child's health, development or welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected,

and that the child requires care or protection which he is unlikely to receive unless the court makes an order under this section, the court may make an order (in this Act referred to as a “care order”) in respect of the child.

I'm not sure how far this provision would stretch in dealing with a major public health issue such as one caused by lots of parents deciding to be morons and not getting their children vaccinated.

The thing is though that the point raised by Onesimus is not a valid reason for voting No in the first place. As Robin points out it is a red herring, so your argument while valid is misdirected.

Oh, and for the record, IMO, none of Onesimus' points are valid arguments for a no vote. At best they are scaremongering, tenuous arguments based on appeals to fear and consequences and written using emotive language and rhetoric.

mikhail

Gbear wrote: »

There's a thing called herd immunity.

Once you immunise above a certain % of children, those that can't take the vaccine (for health reasons) are effectively kept safe because the level of immunisation is so high.

If you have too many people not getting vaccinated it not only puts them at risk but also those who can't get vaccinated.

My understanding is that the vaccines also don't work 100% of the time, meaning that herd immunity is important even to vaccinated kids.