Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:Sigh. Russell, it's not that I think government is the answer, it's that I think following medical advice is the answer to medical issues.

Which is what I believe as well. But I want the decision to be mine not the government telling me I have to do it.

Ah, but what if the medical advice is for people to be told to have to do it?

ARJ wrote:

danivon wrote:Do you have a link on the doctor licence revoking thing?

I am looking for it. The problem is that PA for the most part does not include it's Code online. I have a call into the state medical board to find out if they might be an exception.

Ta. It would be interesting to know what the actual position is and in what circumstances it would apply. Certainly it seems to me that if a person (or their parents) do not opt out, they are by default accepting it.

ARJ wrote:

danivon wrote:Or on how it is the government that tells doctors to be as unethical as you claim?

I am not sure I have ever said government tells doctors to be unethical? Should I now start screaming and being obnoxious about you putting words in my mouth and calling you you all sorts of names for misrepresenting what I have said?

No, Russell, you can remain calm (I remained calm with Steve, even though it was hard work trying to get him to accept how he had indeed done that, and it may not have come across that way).

But it would be unethical for a doctor to just tell people that '4 shots' were going to take place and not say what they were for. What you described as being the norm for American vaccination at a doctor's would be considered a gross breach of ethics here (and we don't have the Hippocratic Oath, as you do). While I don't have kids of my own, I did just pop over with my gf to help her sister out after the birth of her third child last week. I remember them mentioning his jabs then - even after being groggy from painkillers the mother was able to say what the jabs her baby had been given were for. As far as I recall, I've never heard of a child being immunised over here without the parents knowing at the very least which disease was being vaccinated / inoculated against.

Now, if your description is accurate and not just hyperbole, I'd like to know if it is as a result of government action, or it's the way that the doctor behaves. Is that enough of a restatement of the question for you?

Apart from anything else, if the vaccination is by appointment (which is usual, I would expect), why would they not notify at the point of setting it up what the appointment was for and which vaccinations were due? I can see the point if it happens in the maternity dept or in the very early ante-natal appointments, but most vaccinations are actually for older children and it's not likely that they'd coincide with a visit for another reason. Even if they did, I would expect more information to be provided than your description suggests.

Now, as for 'opt-in', there is a problem at a medical level. This is that it is easier for people to miss vaccinations, even if they don't intend to. This will inevitably result in lower uptake and a lower herd immunity protecting those who opt out, increasing the likelihood of an outbreak.

However, outbreaks will not just affect those who opt out. Some people cannot receive vaccinations for medical reasons. Some people receive them but for some reason they don't take (and this is very hard to detect). Some vaccinations wear off over time without voluntary boosters. Some people develop conditions or undergo treatment that renders their immune system unable to function properly, making any vaccine they had utterly irrelevant.

Every person who decides to opt out causes a slight increase to the risks to those people above who, without having any choice, are not protected other than by herd immunity and lack of prevalence.

Maybe the children of forgetful parents deserve to contract nasty diseases as a result, and maybe the principle of parental choice is more important than the rights of their children and other people to be protected from disease, but it's not a position I would ascribe to.

By the way, out of respect for Franklin, I prefer the actual words he used, not the paraphrase that is commonly attributed to him:

Benjamin Franklin wrote:They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I think the loss of the words 'essential' and 'temporary' as well as the displacement of 'little' make a little difference to the meaning. source: wikiquote

I hope he doesn't get upset about it

bbauska wrote:Yes, I get that the mandate helped fight polio. Does that make it right? There was a mandate for the military draft, but that was not well received in some left leaning circles.

Gosh, maybe two completely different issues are completely different? Maybe not everyone on the left wants to simply impose mandates because, like, Stalinism is cool and stuff. Maybe "hey, look over there! some right winger doesn't agree on the same principle as you espouse extrapolated to another subject, so your argument falls lol1!!1".

Still, kudos for accepting the part of mandated vaccines in ridding America (and most of the world) of polio.

Personally, I think it was right. But then I've met someone who had polio and survived it (and they were the 'lucky ones').

The base question is: Is it the responsibility of the parent or the government to ensure that the child is protected?

Personally, I think the responsibility is shared. I really don't like false dichotomies or the idea that because X does Y, Z cannot do it as well.

If a vaccination protects the one getting the vaccination why is it the responsibility of anyone other than the parent to ensure inoculation? I understand herd immunity. Some say that it protects those who do not get immunized. I am sorry, but that is not my problem.

Please see my above response to ARJ for a list of the people who are not protected for reasons other than parental opt-out. Those people are at risk and that risk is increased as people opting out.

I am responsible for my family's safety and well-being. It needs to be the same with everyone. If they want there kid safe, get immunized.

As before, and I guess it's getting hard for you to actually grasp what herd immunity means in the context of reality, as opposed to a theoretical universe where the only way people are not covered is to not have been immunised.

Again, it's not just about the kids of those who choose not to let them be immunised. if it were, you'd be right-ish. 'Ish', because I think endangering yourself by choice is not the same as endangering your kids by choice.

We do not need the government telling us anything other than recommendations IRT vaccinations.

Well, it's a shame than that they did, eliminating smallpox, drastically reducing the extent of polio and diphtheria, cutting measles-related deaths massively, and similarly with whooping cough. To quote a famous American "Oh! The humanity!"

I noticed you didn't use the sarcasm smilie. Do you feel better now, Owen?

bbauska

Yes, I get that the mandate helped fight polio. Does that make it right?

Virtually eradicated polio. So yes, it did make it right.
But thats only if you value results and pragmaticism over what seems to be a weakly defended and misguided principle.
To start equating mandatory vaccinations (with an opt out clause) as a restriction on liberty strikes me as simply odd. The arguement seems to be "it would be stupid not to have your children vacinnated but you should be free to be stupid."
It comes back to the question of whether or not children should become test subjects for their parents fundamnentalism. (JV's and blood transfusions, etc.) I recently read about some nut who beat his adopted children to death...based on a fundamental reading of the bible. These are extreme, but placing your child in the path of a communicable disease to make a point about liberty is equally daft.
What mandatory vaccinations have done is create liberty from polio, diptheria, whooping cough and measles. And along with being freed of those noxious diseases,vaccines have eliminated some of the fear parents live with every day they raise children.
If mandated vaccines havn't been conducted with a comprehesnsive communication and education program in some jurisdictions, that's unfortunate. But it doesn't discount the amazing success that these programs represent. And yes, their success makes the methods right. Which, since they are usually govnerment run programs does seem to irk those who can't abide the development of government when its a force for positive change or what they think is negative.
I fail to discern any genuine sacrifice of liberty at all in mandating vaccines as long as the parent has the right to make the case against the vaccine should they wish to do so...I imagine there will always be some misguided or misinformed who will take that stand. But it should be difficult to take that stand. Not easy.
Both for the well being of the populace at large who depend upon vast participation to help drive the elimination of the plagues, but also for the sake of children...who can't choose their parents.

danivon wrote:Ah, but what if the medical advice is for people to be told to have to do it?

Again, my responsibility and my decision not the government's to make me.

danivon wrote:But it would be unethical for a doctor to just tell people that '4 shots' were going to take place and not say what they were for. What you described as being the norm for American vaccination at a doctor's would be considered a gross breach of ethics here (and we don't have the Hippocratic Oath, as you do). (snip)Now, if your description is accurate and not just hyperbole, I'd like to know if it is as a result of government action, or it's the way that the doctor behaves. Is that enough of a restatement of the question for you?

Well, I will admit to being a little hyperbolic. However, it wasn't far off. The doctor says something like she gets 4 shots today, MMR, DPT, Hep B & PCV. There is no explanation of what the shots are for (unless you ask), there is no discussion of possible side effect beyond she might be a little cranky(unless you ask) and there is no offer to opt out.

danivon wrote:Apart from anything else, if the vaccination is by appointment (which is usual, I would expect), why would they not notify at the point of setting it up what the appointment was for and which vaccinations were due?

Because the appointment is for general wellness exam that is done every month for the first year of life.

danivon wrote: I can see the point if it happens in the maternity dept or in the very early ante-natal appointments, but most vaccinations are actually for older children

I don't know what it is like in England but here most vaccinations are done within the first 12 months of birth with boosters later in life.

danivon wrote:Now, as for 'opt-in', there is a problem at a medical level. This is that it is easier for people to miss vaccinations, even if they don't intend to. This will inevitably result in lower uptake and a lower herd immunity protecting those who opt out, increasing the likelihood of an outbreak.

Not sure I see how they are any more likely to miss them in an opt in then an opt out? Parent takes child to doctor for appointment, Doctor says this is the scheduled vaccination due, do you want to opt in/out. The only difference is does the doctor ask before giving the shot and wait for an affirmative response instead of a negative response.

danivon wrote:By the way, out of respect for Franklin, I prefer the actual words he used, not the paraphrase that is commonly attributed to him:

Benjamin Franklin wrote:They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I think the loss of the words 'essential' and 'temporary' as well as the displacement of 'little' make a little difference to the meaning. source: wikiquote

I hope he doesn't get upset about it

Well I was trying to go from memory but my response is all personal liberty is essential and should rarely be given up.

"You should be free to be stupid". Couldn't have put it better myself. That is EXACTLY how I feel. I feel I am a fine parent. I work, teach, care, raise and foster growth to be great adults (not perfect, but doing pretty well).

What makes me better that the nutcases you listed? Is it genetics? Upbringing? Social Class?

If you feel that there is child abuse occurring because of a lack of vaccination why have an opt out clause at all? Do you feel that parents are mandated to treat their child w/o abuse unless there is an opt out clause?

I can hear it now... Your Honor, my wife and I beat our children horribly and caused traumas beyond belief. But here is our signed form to the State of ____________, showing our desire to withdraw from the sane treatment of children. We are exonerated.

Puh-leeze! Parents do the right thing because they are good parents, not because the government tells them to. Wouldn't you agree with that? The kooky fringe (on both sides!) are not going to follow a mandate regardless of what it says. Good parents are going to vaccinate their children because it is the right thing to do.

All that being said; Why have a mandate at all if the good parents will follow it, and the poor parents won't?

bbauska wrote:I noticed you didn't use the sarcasm smilie. Do you feel better now, Owen?

Consider the sarcasm implied. But I feel pretty fine enough either way.

You asked if it's right to have a mandate. One that allows people to opt out fairly easily. One that appears to have contributed to the reduction in some pretty nasty diseases that kill and maim. I say yes, you say no.

I point to medical issues, you point to 'parental choice'. I point to herd immunity and you cling to the idea that it only affects those who are opted out. I point out who else actually benefits from herd immunity and it's ignored.

I'm starting to understand the original question for this thread so much more now.

All that being said; Why have a mandate at all if the good parents will follow it, and the poor parents won't?

I'd have thought it pretty obvious. To try and reduce the number of children not vaccinated because of poor parents and to reduce the risk to the remainder (and to all the other people not covered by a vaccine for whatever reason).

I'm quite laid back about your right to be stupid when it comes to your own life, health, wealth etc. I'm less sure about when the right to be stupid means being stupid about other people's life, health, etc. Not just that of your own kids, but that of people you have never met before.

I was asked if I am a parent. Now my turn to ask:

Any of you unable to accept a vaccine due to medical issues and since then reliant on herd immunity to protect you from a particular disease? One that people around here have started to opt out of the shot for because they swallowed the total rubbish put out by Andrew Wakefield? An outbreak occurred a few miles away from where I was living a few years ago. My view of 'personal liberty' is that it ends where my nose (or my health) begins.

No and No to your questions.

As to this outbreak... Did your vaccination keep you safe from this disease?

BTW, your points are not ignored, just disagreed with.

As to this outbreak... Did your vaccination keep you safe from this disease?

Perhaps the implication behind my question was not clear. I did not receive a vaccination because of medical issues.

Perhaps you did not understand me either.

Let me be precise. What was the outbreak disease? Were you vaccinated prior to the outbreak? You are smart and capable. I would assume you were prepared.

Brad,

Owen is trying to say he did not receive the vaccination as a child due to some medical reason such as an allergy to the vaccine.

Ahh, I would like to think the mix up was between Queen's English and an Amercanism. Sadly, it is just a miss-read.

bbauska

Why have a mandate at all if the good parents will follow it, and the poor parents won't?

Because experience and evidence demonstrate that when you have a mandate upwards of 90%+ of people get vaccinated. And when you have a voluntary program the turnout is often far less. When polio was at its height people were scared and ran their children in for shots or sugar cubes. Now, the ignorance of Jenny MCCarthy and other frightens people into poor judgments.
Spike Milligan said "Idiots do not know they are idiots".
Parents who have to provide the reasons for their objections to authorities are forced to deal with informing themselves . If they offer ignorant or ridiculous arguments (In Nigeria it was that the government was attempting to sterilize everyone secretly) they can be corrected with good information and make the better decision about the security of their child's future health.
Without being forced to make that decision, they can hide in their silo of ignorance. And they will.
Endangering not only their own children but the security of those who medically can't be vaccinated but who will exposed to greater risk as vaccination rates fall.

Arch

The doctor says something like she gets 4 shots today, MMR, DPT, Hep B & PCV. There is no explanation of what the shots are for (unless you ask), there is no discussion of possible side effect beyond she might be a little cranky(unless you ask) and there is no offer to opt out.

This simply illustrates what I'm saying Archduke. If a parent, taking their child to the doctor, is concerned about vaccinations you'd think they'd have prepared themselves to have this discussion.
If they aren't equipped to have the decision when they know they are about to meet with the doctor, what on earth makes you think they'll be informed about having to take positive action?
Or will they sit on their couch listening to Jenny McCarthy on tabloid TV, reading the blogs from conspiracy whack jobs on the internet and intoning their "liberty' and right to choose to reinforce their unwillingness to have their ignorance challenged?

People still smoke. And smoke around their children. That endangers themselves and their children.They retain the liberty to make that stupid choice in their own homes.
The problem with communicable diseases is that it also endangers others. You can't isolate a communicable disease the way society has increasingly isolated smoke and smokers.
You have a responsibility as a citizen to not endanger your fellow citizens by your actions OR inactions.
Liberty is not license.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Brad,

Owen is trying to say he did not receive the vaccination as a child due to some medical reason such as an allergy to the vaccine.

Exactly. While the disease is not all that serious in most cases, it can be quite serious in adult males. It's mumps, you see.

Please note, I'm not trying to make my position out to mean I feel in serious danger just walking down the street. I don't I barely think of it until I hear people talking about vaccination as if it only affects the person getting or not getting the drug. People like me are perhaps not the biggest risk. It's those who have other medical conditions which deplete their immunity, or for which the treatment does. They have no choice about whether they are protected by vaccinations. They aren't.

rickyp wrote:This simply illustrates what I'm saying Archduke. If a parent, taking their child to the doctor, is concerned about vaccinations you'd think they'd have prepared themselves to have this discussion.
If they aren't equipped to have the decision when they know they are about to meet with the doctor, what on earth makes you think they'll be informed about having to take positive action?
Or will they sit on their couch listening to Jenny McCarthy on tabloid TV, reading the blogs from conspiracy whack jobs on the internet and intoning their "liberty' and right to choose to reinforce their unwillingness to have their ignorance challenged.

Actually no it doesn't. How does the example of a doctor not attempting to fully inform the parent's unless prompted point that parent's don't/won't educate themselves.

In an opt in system the doctor would ask, " your child is scheduled for MMR vaccination today. Do you want me to do it?" Most people will say, what is that? Doctor response - vaccination against Measles, mumps are rubella. Parent - tell me about it. Doctor - it protects against MMR which can have X effect on your child's development. Parent - what are the possible side effects. Doctor - current scientific studies show X potential side effects. Parent- ok give them the vaccination.

Seriously, Dan and ricky's argument seems to be that parent's won't take their children to the doctors to get the shots if they are not required. However, I don't know anybody who skips their child's monthly wellness exam for the first 12 months, which is when all the innoculations are given. The reason is this is when parent's are told what their newborn can eat, i.e. ceral starting at 3 months, fruits and veggies at 5 months, meats at 6 month. If they are skipping those first 12 monthly wellness exams, making the vaccinations opt in or opt out isn't going to make any difference. The child isn't getting them any way.