Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Incidence of measles, mumps and rubella all increase due to anti-vaccine campaign

11012141516

Comments



  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    It would benefit the child in one way, but it would be detrimental to them in another way - they'd live longer, but you'd have just undermined their religious beliefs. There aren't too many JWs who would be ok with that sort of intervention based on what we believe is best for them. That's the sort of dangerous precedent I'm talking about by imposing our own moral and ethical standards on people who don't share our moral and ethical standards.
    Our courts (as well as I!) would simple disagree with that
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0112/296410-transfusion/
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    The matter we're talking about here is whether or not we should legislate for forced vaccinations. I believe in this instance that parents have the right to refuse to vaccinate their children if they do not wish to do so. I may not agree with their decision, but I respect their right to be allowed to make that determination.
    Yes, that is the current state of play at the moment and is likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future.
    But we would not be treading on new ground if, at some point in the future, this were to change and there vaccinations or not would cease to in the gift of the parents to make. There already are some circumstances where the state will overrule the wishes of the parents (see above).

    The precedent (dangerous or not) has already being set – this (the state over-ruling the parents) is the non-existent Rubicon I refer to.




  • MilanPan!c wrote: »
    Do we want to go down the road of protecting the majority of people from nutters?

    Ummm... Yes.


    You only think they're mentally ill because you don't agree with them. Should we start locking up all the people you don't agree with? I imagine that'd be a pretty long list, which sounds to me like the only person left in society would be, well, you!




  • Jernal wrote: »
    It's a philosophy of rights. Some people do not agree with sacrificing individual liberty for gains in popular benefit. They believe every should be kept to individual autonomy in so far as is reasonably possible. There will always be people doing stupid things, but does that give us the right to force everybody to something?

    The problem is that children's rights in particular are an absolute quagmire in determining where the balance of rights lies - freedom for parents or the states duty of care to children who are vulnerable.

    When it comes to vaccines I'm not sure I've seen satisfactory answer in this thread - the government is not a magical entity that always gets everything right and putting power in their hands should only be done when unavoidable.
    However, as far as I'm concerned healthcare (including vaccines) is broadly equivalent to feeding children properly and I don't recall ever seeing someone argue for the right to starve their children.

    They're both correct and also both mutually exclusive.

    It hurts my head.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    You only think they're mentally ill because you don't agree with them. Should we start locking up all the people you don't agree with? I imagine that'd be a pretty long list, which sounds to me like the only person left in society would be, well, you!

    Are you suggesting it's sane to allow your belief in a debunked conspiracy theory motivate you to endanger your children and your neighbours?

    Or that it's sane to allow your personal fear of crossed rubicons endanger your children or your neighbours...?

    Cause I clear that up: it's not.

    I'd also point out that 80% of people who've answered the poll have said they they think it should be mandatory. So. There's a much greater chance of you being lonely than me.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    You only think they're mentally ill because you don't agree with them. Should we start locking up all the people you don't agree with? I imagine that'd be a pretty long list, which sounds to me like the only person left in society would be, well, you!

    Oh please! It's not simply disagreement - people who refuse to accept the very best conclusions our knowledge and scientific processes can draw (not to mention the epistemological processes themselves) are either delusional, wilfully contrarian or thick.


  • Advertisement


  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    But at what cost Eddy?

    China's "One Child Policy" immediately springs to mind as something that was thought that if it was made mandatory it would solve the population crisis.

    It's undoubtedly been successful as a means of population control, but the social impact of the policy has been devastating. So much so that recently they've decided to relax the policy rather than admit it just hasn't worked.

    You start making vaccinations mandatory, sure, you'll eradicate disease, but have you given any consideration to the social impact on society?

    But what is the impact of giving someone a MMR vaccine?




  • steddyeddy wrote: »
    But what is the impact of giving someone a MMR vaccine?

    you hurted their feelings. :(:(:(




  • Our courts (as well as I!) would simple disagree with that
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0112/296410-transfusion/
    Yes, that is the current state of play at the moment and is likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future.
    But we would not be treading on new ground if, at some point in the future, this were to change and there vaccinations or not would cease to in the gift of the parents to make. There already are some circumstances where the state will overrule the wishes of the parents (see above).

    The precedent (dangerous or not) has already being set – this (the state over-ruling the parents) is the non-existent Rubicon I refer to.


    The State took a shìt all over the Constitution in this case too -


    Girl's forced blood transfusion didn't violate rights: top court


    And the consequences?

    "I don't want to die, which is why I went to the hospital for treatment. I just wanted the best medical treatment without blood …" the young woman, who is now 18, told CBC.

    "There almost are no words to say just how brutal of an act [blood transfusion] is. I once compared it to almost being raped. There are no options for you, there's nothing you can do about it and it's very hard to deal with.


    That's what happens when you impose your own moral and ethical standards on an individual. You don't have to live with the consequences. They have to live with the consequences every day of the rest of their lives.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    But at what cost Eddy?

    China's "One Child Policy" immediately springs to mind as something that was thought that if it was made mandatory it would solve the population crisis.

    It's undoubtedly been successful as a means of population control, but the social impact of the policy has been devastating. So much so that recently they've decided to relax the policy rather than admit it just hasn't worked.

    You start making vaccinations mandatory, sure, you'll eradicate disease, but have you given any consideration to the social impact on society?

    What do you think the ill effects of mandatory vaccination would be? What would be the social impact on society?




  • Muise... wrote: »
    Oh please! It's not simply disagreement - people who refuse to accept the very best conclusions our knowledge and scientific processes can draw (not to mention the epistemological processes themselves) are either delusional, wilfully contrarian or thick.

    And those who believe that compulsory or forced vaccination programs are an appropriate way to address those people, and change their minds; are the epitome of sanity?

    'People who refuse to accept the very best conclusions' you say.. yet there seems to be a whole lot of those people on the pro side here, who choose to ignore the very best and professionally accepted conclusions as to why compulsory vaccination is a bad idea.

    http://web.bma.org.uk/pressrel.nsf/wlu/STRE-5NVJVY?OpenDocument&vw=wfmms


  • Advertisement


  • MilanPan!c wrote: »
    Are you suggesting it's sane to allow your belief in a debunked conspiracy theory motivate you to endanger your children and your neighbours?

    Or that it's sane to allow your personal fear of crossed rubicons endanger your children or your neighbours...?

    Cause I clear that up: it's not.


    Not according to you. But given that you would make such leaps in logic, I think it's also just as logical for me to conclude that you lack the medical knowledge to make such a determination.

    I'd also point out that 80% of people who've answered the poll have said they they think it should be mandatory. So. There's a much greater chance of you being lonely than me.


    80% of people in an online poll disagree with the United Nations General Assembly Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

    I think I'll take my chances...




  • Gbear wrote: »
    The problem is that children's rights in particular are an absolute quagmire in determining where the balance of rights lies - freedom for parents or the states duty of care to children who are vulnerable.

    When it comes to vaccines I'm not sure I've seen satisfactory answer in this thread - the government is not a magical entity that always gets everything right and putting power in their hands should only be done when unavoidable.
    However, as far as I'm concerned healthcare (including vaccines) is broadly equivalent to feeding children properly and I don't recall ever seeing someone argue for the right to starve their children.

    They're both correct and also both mutually exclusive.

    It hurts my head.

    To me this is about the state upholding it's duty of care to the child. The state should be able to intervene where the parent is by refusing the vaccine neglecting the child and putting the childs life at risk.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    Not according to you. But given that you would make such leaps in logic, I think it's also just as logical for me to conclude that you lack the medical knowledge to make such a determination.





    80% of people in an online poll disagree with the United Nations General Assembly Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

    I think I'll take my chances...

    No where does the United Nations General Assembly Universal Declaration of Human Rights give you permission to endanger your neighbours.

    I know you think it does. But it doesn't.




  • And those who believe that compulsory or forced vaccination programs are an appropriate way to address those people, and change their minds; are the epitome of sanity?

    'People who refuse to accept the very best conclusions' you say.. yet there seems to be a whole lot of those people on the pro side here, who choose to ignore the very best and professionally accepted conclusions as to why compulsory vaccination is a bad idea.

    http://web.bma.org.uk/pressrel.nsf/wlu/STRE-5NVJVY?OpenDocument&vw=wfmms

    My point was that a fact is not a matter of opinion, and that such confusion is not quite sane.

    The benefits of MMR vaccination are facts. Social policies regarding their administration involves a lot of opinions.




  • steddyeddy wrote: »
    But what is the impact of giving someone a MMR vaccine?


    It's not the impact of giving them the vaccinations that concerns me Eddie, that implies at least they still have a choice. It's the impact of taking that choice away from them by forcing them to have vaccinations administered to their children without their consent that concerns me.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    The State took a shìt all over the Constitution in this case too -
    Actually it did not. Read the link.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    That's what happens when you impose your own moral and ethical standards on an individual. You don't have to live with the consequences. They have to live with the consequences every day of the rest of their lives.
    Perhaps we have reached a point where we fundamentally disagree. The Canadian case raises an interesting point about the wisdom of a simple, age-defined split between minors and adults (the latter of course should be free to abide by the rules of whatever religion they subscribe to)

    But sending a child to an early grave because of the superstitious beliefs of their “guardians”? Nope, not for me.




  • To me this is about the state upholding it's duty of care to the child. The state should be able to intervene where the parent is by refusing the vaccine neglecting the child and putting the childs life at risk.


    How is a parent putting their child's life at risk by refusing the vaccine? There might be a case to be argued if it was guaranteed that without the vaccine the child would develop one of these diseases.

    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    No where does the United Nations General Assembly Universal Declaration of Human Rights give you permission to endanger your neighbours.

    I know you think it does. But it doesn't.


    Refusing to vaccinate your child does not endanger your neighbours. I know you think it does. But it doesn't.




  • Definitely should be given a choice whether to vaccinate or not, too many people these days are taking reactions to the vaccines both reported and un reported.
    Any peer reviewed link showing that the reactions are worse than measured death rates amongst those who don't vaccinate ?

    Yeah I've felt a tinsy bit woosey after a vaccination needed for travel. Wasn't even man-flu and no idea if it was going to happen anyway.


    In The Scottish Play Shakespere (sp) mentions
    Hang out our banners on the outward walls.
    The cry is still “They come!” Our castle’s strength
    Will laugh a siege to scorn. Here let them lie
    Till famine and the ague eat them up.
    Malaria in Scotland, let's not kid ourselves that we can't have nasty diseases here. The USA funded the eradication of smallpox in one go because it was cheaper and easier than dealing with it piecemeal.




  • Here's the parts of the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS that the anti-vax crowd at against:

    -All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

    Endangering your brother is not being a good brother

    -Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

    Endangering your neighbour limits their security of person

    -(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

    People who refuse to get their children vaccinated are failing in their obligation to their community

    -(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

    People that don't get their children vaccinated fail in the just requirements of morality and general welfare.


    ---


    So.

    Maybe this document isn't the best one to base an anti-vax case on.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    How is a parent putting their child's life at risk by refusing the vaccine? There might be a case to be argued if it was guaranteed that without the vaccine the child would develop one of these diseases.

    We've been through this countless times now.


    Refusing to vaccinate your child does not endanger your neighbours. I know you think it does. But it doesn't.

    We have the chance to eradicate the disease for good, or we can piss around for decades until it mutates into something that's another issue that the whole population has be vaccinated against again. That is scientific fact and has already happened to some virus strains to make them deadlier.

    So yes, refusing to vaccinate your child is idiotic, short sighted and does have the potential to endanger your neighbours -ie the population at large.


  • Advertisement


  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    You start making vaccinations mandatory, sure, you'll eradicate disease, but have you given any consideration to the social impact on society?
    What impact on society ?

    Apart from people not dying or getting sick.




  • 'People who refuse to accept the very best conclusions' you say.. yet there seems to be a whole lot of those people on the pro side here, who choose to ignore the very best and professionally accepted conclusions as to why compulsory vaccination is a bad idea.

    http://web.bma.org.uk/pressrel.nsf/wlu/STRE-5NVJVY?OpenDocument&vw=wfmms
    The argument in the article link suggests avoiding compulsory vaccinations, not because they think vaccinations are a bad idea (the explicitly state the opposite) but because they believe using a stick rather than a carrot would damage the relationship between doctors and their patients. Perhaps this is a sensible approach but it is not a medical or scientific argument.

    And doesn’t the NHS fund patients who opt for homeopathic “treatments”? Surely this tells you that there is more than medical science at play in the influence of their health policies?




  • The argument in the article link suggests avoiding compulsory vaccinations, not because they think vaccinations are a bad idea (the explicitly state the opposite) but because they believe using a stick rather than a carrot would damage the relationship between doctors and their patients. Perhaps this is a sensible approach but it is not a medical or scientific argument.

    And doesn’t the NHS fund patients who opt for homeopathic “treatments”? Surely this tells you that there is more than medical science at play in the influence of their health policies?

    It's optimism that people will behave rationally when given a chance. The majority have done. The minority are choosing to believe in nonsense and they're threatening the majority and their own children.

    The right of the majority to be as safe as reasonably possible trumps the rights of the minority of nutters that are paranoid about the dreaded big pharma.




  • Actually it did not. Read the link.


    I read the link twowheelsgood, not to put too fine a point on it but I'm not pulling this stuff out my arse hole, this is something I've been aware of for a long time now and I've given a lot of thought to the subject.

    Perhaps we have reached a point where we fundamentally disagree. The Canadian case raises an interesting point about the wisdom of a simple, age-defined split between minors and adults (the latter of course should be free to abide by the rules of whatever religion they subscribe to)

    But sending a child to an early grave because of the superstitious beliefs of their “guardians”? Nope, not for me.


    Not for you, or I, but, for the parents of that child in your RTE link, and for the parents of the child in my Canadian link, and for the child herself, refusal of blood transfusions is an intrinsic part of the doctrines of their faith, and as such is a pretty big deal for them.




  • MilanPan!c wrote: »
    It's optimism that people will behave rationally when given a chance. The majority have done. The minority are choosing to believe in nonsense and they're threatening the majority and their own children.

    The right of the majority to be as safe as reasonably possible trumps the rights of the minority of nutters that are paranoid about the dreaded big pharma.

    I think “nutters” might be a little harsh. Some people are just not terribly bright or logical and if they are not they are not. They may quite genuinely believe that they are doing the best for their child by not vaccinating because of a horror tale they heard about another child developing autism.

    But they are wrong. If it was only their own fate they were playing with then we could certainly afford them the right to be wrong. But when they are making decisions for someone else, or if there is an issue for wider society, alas ….




  • MilanPan!c wrote: »
    So.

    Maybe this document isn't the best one to base an anti-vax case on.


    You're right, which is why I'm not using it to make the case for anti-vax. In case I haven't been absolutely and crystal clear, I am pro-vaccination.

    What the above document is best for making a case for though, is that by trampling all over people's human rights, you are setting a precedent where those rights then become meaningless, because any justification you like can be used to disregard them when it suits a particular agenda.




  • I think “nutters” might be a little harsh. Some people are just not terribly bright or logical and if they are not they are not. They may quite genuinely believe that they are doing the best for their child by not vaccinating because of a horror tale they heard about another child developing autism.

    But they are wrong. If it was only their own fate they were playing with then we could certainly afford them the right to be wrong. But when they are making decisions for someone else, or if there is an issue for wider society, alas ….

    It's a fine line. At this point how many people can be said to have no idea that the claim that vaccinations are bad is a fringe belief?

    And of those, how many are we gonna call stupid?

    The other ones, that truly believe either:

    - their freedom to hurt their neighbours is protected, or
    - there's a big conspiracy to get them/protect big pharma's profits by covering up a dangerous MMR vaccine

    are mentally ill to some degree.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    You're right, which is why I'm not using it to make the case for anti-vax. In case I haven't been absolutely and crystal clear, I am pro-vaccination.

    What the above document is best for making a case for though, is that by trampling all over people's human rights, you are setting a precedent where those rights then become meaningless, because any justification you like can be used to disregard them when it suits a particular agenda.

    I know you'd like it to be, but endangering others isn't a human right, and it runs contrary to the document you think protects your right to potentially hurt others.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    I read the link twowheelsgood, not to put too fine a point on it but I'm not pulling this stuff out my arse hole, this is something I've been aware of for a long time now and I've given a lot of thought to the subject.
    So you read the first sentence that pointed out that the girl lost the case and the second one that said medical interventions are constitutionally sound? Doesn’t quite support your assertion that “The State took a shìt all over the Constitution in this case too”
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Not for you, or I, but, for the parents of that child in your RTE link, and for the parents of the child in my Canadian link, and for the child herself, refusal of blood transfusions is an intrinsic part of the doctrines of their faith, and as such is a pretty big deal for them.
    Well as I say. I fundamentally disagree that the parents should be allowed to block vital treatment.

    On a different issue, might I ask what you attitude is to the tiny minority of adults who think children should be permitted to engage in sexual acts, provided the child gives “consent”?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement