[Closed] Compulsory Vaccination of Children

How many kids used to die because the illnesses we now vaccinate against and how many are SUSPECTED of having problems or dying (by all the scaremongers) because of the vaccines? There lies your answer

Probably easier just to ban the unvaccinated from public places.

Anyway it's got all the elements of a right big argument, parents, kids, other peoples kids, fake/bad science, conspiracy theory and more.

If you sign something that says that your child will never use the NHS for treatment of the illness the vaccination is targeting, but will pay for treatment privately - then they shouldn't have to have the vaccination.

If you subscribe to using the NHS, then you have to accept their decisions and way of managing risk.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the attention seeking, malinforming, scaremongering anti vax lobbies but do support the right of a parent, who having made a decision about what they feel best for their child(ren), to be able to make they decision without being vilified and without State intervention.

Sometimes what people 'feel' is best isn't best. Excepting allergies what possible reason is there not to get vaccinated?

Turnerguy - Does the same apply to other voluntary risks - drinkers, smokers, drivers, cyclists, domestic appliance abusers?
Just saying.

but as a parent a deeply uncomfortable with the State dictating what medications I must give to my child.

You can probably get treatment for this.

measles is the biggest vaccine preventable killer disease in the world today, I think. Might want to look that up though . It's also very very infectious, I think 9/10 out of non vaccinated people living with an infected person will get the disease.

You might be against individual medication, but what if a measles outbreak hits the neighbourhood?

[img] [/img]

This is why.

to be able to make they decision without being vilified and without State intervention.

I'm uncomfortable with mandatory vaccination, not because I think it is a potentially harmful thing (all my children are fully vaccinated), but because I think that the fundamental relationship between healthcare professionals and the population needs to be based on good communication and consent, rather than compulsion.

If you unbalance that relationship, then I think we lose a lot more than we gain.

If you base a decision to make measles vaccination mandatory on a very small number of deaths in developed countries (the bulk of deaths from measles are in developing countries), then you could make an even more compelling case for making flu vaccination, or statin use, or various screening programmes, compulsory.

Turnerguy - Does the same apply to other voluntary risks

If the state advised against doing them then why should the state (our taxes) pay for the consequences of you going against their advice?

Take out your own insurance for that sort of thing instead of relying on the state 'insurance'.

It's like expecting my normal ski insurance to pay out because I made a mistake off-piste.

There is not an endless pool of money - someone needing treatment for cancer might not have the funds available because some parent decided against the state advice of vaccinating their child and the money has gone on them instead.

he fundamental relationship between healthcare professionals and the population needs to be based on good communication and consent, rather than compulsion.

you are over-estimating the 'smarts' of the general population - you know - the ones that go to the doctor for some anti-biotics because they have a cold, or then go to A&E because the doctor won't give them any...

Mandatory vaccination is impractical, because there are some people who for varying reasons cannot be vaccinated. This is why it's so very important to vaccinate everyone else.

I am anti anti vax

Then you need to do some reading. Or you can explain why you're "anti-vax", and I can endeavour to explain why you've been misinformed. Either or.

[img] [/img]

In the developing world, secondary pneumonia does most of the killing but is rare here. SSPE "only" kills 15-30% but it's massively debilitating too.
20ish a year down to near zero is justification alone, IMO
(those are ENgland & Wales figures)

[i]then you could make an even more compelling case for making flu vaccination, or statin use, or various screening programmes, compulsory.[/i]

Is this not just a "slippery slope" logical fallacy?

I am anti anti vax

To be fair, I had to read that a second time.

Or you can explain why you're "anti-vax"

He's anti the antis...bit of an awkward double negative though. 😐

Cougar - Moderator
Mandatory vaccination is impractical, because there are some people who for varying reasons cannot be vaccinated. This is why it's so very important to vaccinate everyone else.

I am anti anti vax
Then you need to do some reading. Or you can explain why you're "anti-vax", and I can endeavour to explain why you've been misinformed. Either or.

Cougar i think you missed the thrust of that statement.

Turnerguy - Does the same apply to other voluntary risks - drinkers, smokers, drivers, cyclists, domestic appliance abusers?
Just saying.

Drinking, smoking, domestic appliance abuse affect only yourself.
If you drive/cycle and hurt someone else the hammer of the law will come down harsh.

Do you think therefore if you have a kid and don't vaccinate you should be prosecuted and sent to prison if your stupidity causes someone to get ill or die.

Just saying.

EDIT: OP - the law (which is signed and in place) is for children who go to public school. Exceptions are made for medical reasons. You can avoid vaccination if your kid would have it otherwise and you're so selfish if you home-school.

Cougar i think you missed the thrust of that statement.

You're right, sorry. Cheerfully withdrawn, I completely misread it!

Is this not just a "slippery slope" logical fallacy?

You may be right, but I do note a tendency in some bits of public health to take one restrictive step and then use that as a platform to move towards the next one. Obviously that observation (anti-smoking legislation) is in a slightly different ballpark in which health campaigners are on more solid ground, but the principle of doing something to protect the herd and the individual is similar.

As I said before, I'm generally pro-vaccination, and think health authorities should be continuing to strenuously campaign to win hearts and minds rather than resorting to compulsion, which runs the risk of poisoning the relationship. Even as someone inclined to vaccinate my children, I would be taken aback to get a letter instructing me to deliver them up for their jabs or risk a fine etc. Also, if non-compliance is a criminal matter rather than a free choice, it will also become the business of other arms of the state.

If vaccination uptake is poor in some locations and communities, there must be a reason, and simply labelling the folk involved as thickies who need decisions made for them is lazy stuff.

martin, yes agreed, I'd be much happier with an education and information based programme.

I think there is an element of "we know best, just do what we say" in some parts of the NHS, the: "Don't smoke, don't drink, don't even think about that donut" finger wagging can grate, but you'd be surprised I think just how "new" that news is to a lot of folk even in 2015*

* I work in primary care, on a daily basis I'm staggered by the lack of knowledge that you'd take for granted as "common"

Idiots will always be idiots. Not vaccinating is verging on child neglect imo.

Not vaccinating is verging on child neglect

Depends. A lot of the principle behind mass vaccination doesn't relate to the individual risk your child has of suffering harm from that illness, but the need to achieve a herd immunity to protect younger, unvaccinated children and other vulnerable immune-suppressed groups, as in the Californian case cited above.

If herd immunity for measles is already present, as it is in many parts of the UK (not all, though), the non-vaccination of your child may well represent little or no risk to them, but there is a societal responsibility to maintain herd immunity for the benefit of others.

So you're not necessarily neglecting your kid, but other people's ill aunties and babies.

Wow, with so many other real and present threats/issues to worry about regarding your kids I'm amazed this even gets on people's radar. Do people really and truly believe the hogwash conspiracies around vaccinations? The thing with vaccinations it's all about protecting the population and is sort of an all or nothing thing. It's pointless to have half the population vaccinated and the other half not. There is plenty of evidence around after the decades and generations we've been vaccinating people so it's a waste of time for our very busy doctors to have to explain the obvious to people. You can find all the data you need for yourself. It's pointless anyway, no doctor would advise against vaccinating so what information would you expect to get from them?

How would the collective feel if vaccination were made compulsory here?

I'd be against it, but I also vaccinated my kids. You should have the choice even though its moronic not to do so.

Due to an illness and a febrile convulsion I wasn't vaccinated against mumps or measels and guess what I got mumps. Never had measels though and not been vaccinated against it yet either.

I believe we have an inalienable and godgiven right to spread potentially dangerous diseases to others. My right to a kneejerk, deceit-led objection to vaccinations is surely more important than other people's right to not die.

Depends. A lot of the principle behind mass vaccination doesn't relate to the individual risk your child has of suffering harm from that illness, but the need to achieve a herd immunity

Not really because the risk from the vaccine is tiny and the potential for harm from measels or whatever is large. Being too stupid to balance risks and consequences is no barrier to being a parent

Do people really and truly believe the hogwash conspiracies around vaccinations?

Sadly, yes. The Internet and the media are awash with misinformation (and I'd love half an hour in a room with Andrew Wakefield and a baseball bat). For a recent high-profile example see: https://twitter.com/JimCarrey/status/616049450243338240

Not really because the risk from the vaccine is tiny and the potential for harm from measels or whatever is large. Being too stupid to balance risks and consequences is no barrier to being a parent

I'd agree that most parents who refuse MMR are not properly balancing risk and benefit. They just read something in the Daily Mail.

The point I was trying to make was in response to the idea that it is neglectful of your individual child. Stopping your kids from getting MMR is more about the risk to other, unvaccinated or immune-compromised groups than it is about the risk to their own children. It's less a parenting issue than it is a social responsibility issue.

If you live in a town where MMR coverage is 95%, then the herd immunity makes the risk to an unvaccinated but otherwise healthy child much, much smaller, simply because the virus is very unlikely to get a foothold in the community, so there is a very small chance of coming into contact with it. If you live in London, where rates are much lower, then the risk to an individual child rises.

MMR is a pretty safe vaccine, but no vaccine would ever be described as 100% safe, so the risk/benefit equation might well be a bit closer in some circumstances compared to others.

I would repeat that I don't believe a word of the MMR Autism thing, and both my children received MMR, mostly because I think it is the socially responsible thing to do.

Well put.

MMR is a pretty safe vaccine

The whole mercury / thiomersal thing is bollocks of the highest order, not least because it hasn't been used in the vast majority of vaccines for about 15 years (and totally in the UK IIRC). Somewhat ironically, it was removed due to public concerns rather than any actual evidence that it wasn't safe, and that then just fuelled the suspicions of the great unwashed.

People are idiots, film at 11.

Yeah, here.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/vaccine-ingredients.aspx

Thiomersal is no longer used in any of the vaccines routinely given to babies and young children in the NHS childhood immunisation programme.

And in the US,

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228

So even if there was a link between Thiomersal / MMR and Autism, which there isn't, it's moot anyway because it's no longer present.

If you sign something that says that your child will never use the NHS for treatment of the illness the vaccination is targeting, but will pay for treatment privately - then they shouldn't have to have the vaccination.

Some people can't be vaccinated for medical reasons, eg allergic reactions.

By not giving your child a vaccine, you are contributing to the breakdown of herd immunity and increase the risk to those people who genuinely cannot be vaccinated.

So it's not even a question of paying for your own care, it's a question of compensating those who you have harmed as well. The anti-vaxxers are a symptom of our idiot culture obsessed with individualism.

Martinhutch... I understand how herd immunity works but even when benefitting from it the risk of what could happen if you get measels far outweighs the risk from the vaccine

If vaccination uptake is poor in some locations and communities, there must be a reason, and simply labelling the folk involved as thickies who need decisions made for them is lazy stuff.

Usually it is because they are thickies or uneducated. You will never convince these people by trying to gain their trust, the world is now awash with more information than certain classes of individuals can handle. Society is becoming increasingly unable to tell objective truth from lies and propaganda.

what could happen [b]if[/b] you get measels

Of course, but it's the 'if' that's most important in determining measles-related risk for an otherwise healthy child, and that will vary depending on where you live in the UK. It's a moot point, obviously. Kids should be vaccinated, partly for their own personal protection, but mainly for the herd protection of those who for whatever reason can't protect themselves. Whether that's enough to justify mandatory immunisation is another matter. Personally I think it would be counterproductive in terms of the trust between the healthcare community and families.

IIRC one person died in the UK in 2013 from measles-related complications. An immunocompromised adult, I think. Hugely more people die every year because of flu complications. On the face of it mandatory flu immunisation for target groups, and perhaps even the general population, makes more sense.

Society is becoming increasingly unable to tell objective truth from lies and propaganda.

'Twas ever thus.

IIRC one person died in the UK in 2013 from measles-related complications. An immunocompromised adult, I think. Hugely more people die every year because of flu complications. On the face of it mandatory flu immunisation for target groups, and perhaps even the general population, makes more sense.

Except that only one person died due to the fact we have a very high coverage of measles vaccinations. If we swapped that for flu vaccines the rate would change massively.

Personally: I think if you have children and you want them to attend any educational establishment (kindergarten, primary; public and private) as a parent you should be obliged to vaccinate them by law. If you want to drive a car on your private estate you don't need a licence, but hit the public roads and it changes. Same with vaccination.

Herd Immunity isn't [i]just[/i] about protecting the unvaccinated or the immunocompromised by the way.

There is the (less comfortable) issue that vaccines are not 100% effective in individuals. In some people a vaccine simply might not take properly. But that's fine as long as the rest of the surrounding herd is immune.

In other words, anti-vaxers could potentially endanger the health of your own vaccinated children.

So I can understand comments about wanting to exclude unvaccinated children from school.

On the face of it mandatory flu immunisation for target groups, and perhaps even the general population, makes more sense.

Except the flu jab this year was widely acknowledged to be fairly ineffective?

Northwind - Member
I believe we have an inalienable and godgiven right to spread potentially dangerous diseases to others. My right to a kneejerk, deceit-led objection to vaccinations is surely more important than other people's right to not die.

Genius - never seen it said better. 🙂

Except the flu jab this year was widely acknowledged to be fairly ineffective?

Because there's no such thing as "the" flu. They immunise based on best guesses of what particular strain of flu might happen to rear its head in the coming seasons, its a bit like immunising based on weather forecasts.

In vaccination debates I was involved in when my son was younger, a number of anti-vax mums' responses to the herd immunity said their priority was their child, not society.

a number of anti-vax mums' responses to the herd immunity said their priority was their child, not society.

Even taking that selfish but understandable stance as read, it's still no credible reason not to vaccinate.

I agree Cougar, but that's the stance they take.

Classic Game Theory. Personally, and professionally, the US have got it right. Speaking as someone who's partner suffered humble chickenpox at the age of 30 - it wasn't pretty and about 30 people a year die from it.

Some poor teenager will probably die in September in their first term at University too. Herd immunity works for the benefit of society and those too sick (immunocompromised) to have the vaccine.

In fact, one woman attempted to explain to me that herd immunity was nonsense, using tetanus as an example!

Speaking as someone who's partner suffered humble chickenpox at the age of 30 - it wasn't pretty and about 30 people a year die from it.

There's good reasons why we don't vaccinate against chickenpox; it increases the risk of shingles in adulthood. (I don't remember the actual logic, would have to google.)

here,

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/chickenpox-vaccine-questions-answers.aspx

There's a worry that introducing chickenpox vaccination for all children could increase the risk of chickenpox and shingles in older people.

Whilst chickenpox during childhood is unpleasant, the vast majority of children recover quickly and easily. In adults, chickenpox is more severe and the risk of complications increases with age.

If a childhood chickenpox vaccination programme was introduced people would not catch chickenpox as children (as the infection would no longer circulate in areas where the majority of children had been vaccinated). This would leave unvaccinated children (there will always be a few who are unable or choose not to have the vaccine) susceptible to contracting chickenpox as adults when they are more likely to develop a more severe infection or a secondary complication, or in pregnancy when there is a risk of the infection harming the baby.

We could also see a significant increase in cases of shingles in adults. Adults who are naturally exposed to chickenpox (such as through contact with infected children) receive a natural boosting of their chickenpox antibodies which prevents the chickenpox virus (which remains dormant in the body after chickenpox infection) from reactivating in their bodies in the majority of cases and causing shingles.

If you vaccinate children against chickenpox, you lose this natural boosting so current levels of immunity in adults will drop and more shingles will occur.

IIRC chickenpox vaccine isn't particularly good either (at least it wasnt a few years ago)

I think there are two slightly different issues here. I agree that you *should* get your children vaccinated. Babybgoode is.

But, I disagree that you *must*. My sister is a GP and her husband a consultant and both, via their work, do not particularly like Western medical philosophy and treatments (to the extent my sister is no longer a practising Dr).

They have chosen not to get their children vaccinated. Now,whether they are right or wrong in that decision, should the State be able to drag the children kicking and screaming and against their parents will and foreceably inject them with drugs their parents fundamentally disagree with?

Move it on a step. Current thinking is that all alduts over a certain age (45 I think) should take statins. This is something that I do not want to do but what if they made it compulsory? How would I our you feel about being made to take a medication you did not want.

Now I appreciate that the risk to others by me not taking statins is no whereas the is a risk to others with not having your children vaccinated but the principal of mandatory medication is the same in both cases.

That is the question I posed, not the rights and wrongs of vaccination but whether the State should be able to force anyone to give their children medication against their will.

As I say, imo two slightly different issues.

I think the thing that clouds the issue, as you point out, is that the decision not to vaccinate a child impacts on the health of other children and adults.

If you just want to examine the right of the state to overrule parents for the health of their own child then look at cases where medical intervention is against the religious beliefs of the parents (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses).

Follow the money.

At GrahamS, yes aware of such cases but they tend to be where the child's life is in danger, on a case by case basis and often decided by a court weighing up the individual circumstances of the case.

As I said in my Op the bit I am uncomfortable is the State deciding on a blanket basis what parents must medicate their children with-regardless of the reason for that medication.

I do believe that Andrew Wakefield was on to something but was pushed off the path.

As I said in my Op the bit I am uncomfortable is the State deciding on a blanket basis what parents must medicate their children with-regardless of the reason for that medication.

Me too.

But I'm also uncomfortable with other people's decisions increasing the risk to my kids.

It's a tricky balance for sure. As it always is when weighing personal liberties against the overall good of society.

No, Andrew Wakefield is a complete ****er and needs to be shot for the shit storm he caused.

But, I still think it is for the parent to decide and not the State regardless of how misguided (or indeed well intended) that decision is.

But, I disagree that you *must*. My sister is a GP and her husband a consultant and both, via their work, do not particularly like Western medical philosophy and treatments (to the extent my sister is no longer a practising Dr).

They have chosen not to get their children vaccinated. Now,whether they are right or wrong in that decision, should the State be able to drag the children kicking and screaming and against their parents will and foreceably inject them with drugs their parents fundamentally disagree with?

It's obvious that you respect and admire your sister, which is nice, but she REALLY ought to know better.

And why the emotive "kicking and screaming" bit? Did she not vaccinate her poor kiddiwinks because they don't like injections?

Some kids don't like going to school, but that's a legal requirement for a very good reason.

I feel the same about vaccination and voting FWIW.

I do believe that Andrew Wakefield was on to something

Then [i]"Follow the money"[/i]:

It all began with Wakefield’s relationship with one British solicitor named Richard Barr...
..These are the sort of children that were being encouraged to contact [b]Dr. Wakefield, who, as we know was ultimately paid £435,643 in fees[/b], plus £3,910 expenses by Barr. But that was chump change compared to the amount of money that Wakefield and his cronies envisioned based on the work they were doing at the Royal Free Hospital..

"And on Wednesday, with the news that the boy–still on the ward–might have Crohn’s disease, the doctor produced a remarkable document. It was an 11 page draft of a scheme behind the vaccine scare, now revealed for the first time in full.

The document was headed “Inventor/school/investor meeting 1.”15 Based on a patent Wakefield had filed in March 1995 claiming that “Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis may be diagnosed by detecting measles virus in bowel tissue, bowel products or body fluids,”16 it proposed starting a company that could reap huge returns from molecular viral diagnostic tests. It predicted [b]a turnover from Britain and America of up to £72.5m a year.[/b]"

-- http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/01/12/andrew-wakefield-in-it-for-the-money-all/

@cha****ng. In my opinion she should know better but both her and hubby are trained medical professionals who have decided they do not like Western medicine much at all having worked in it for 10 years plus.

As I say, I disagree with their decision but fully support their right to choose.

Education is different, it is not a drug that is injected in to you (although Matrix style learning is appealing) and actually, there is no legal requirement to send them to school. If you feel school is not an appropriate environment for your child you can educate them at home.

If you want them to go to school but disagree with the State's idea of what a good education is you can send the to say a Montessori school etc.

There is a great deal of parental choice when it comes to education...

As I say, imo two slightly different issues.

Two wholly different issues. One directly affects the life of the person making that decision, the other affects the life of an innocent and potentially those around them.

I do believe that Andrew Wakefield was on to something but was pushed off the path.

It's a shame that path wasn't on the edge of a cliff, it would have saved a lot of lives.

I knew you would mention home schooling. Let's be honest, that's not in anyone's interest.

Wriggle all you want, you're wrong on this.

I should really know better than to engage with cranks on the internet.

Oh I am not a crank. I wholely endorse and support vaccination but do not think it should be mandatory on the basis I do not think the State should have the power to decide what medications people must take.

Strongly recommend-yes, educate - yes; force - no.

I'm not swung either way on whether it should be mandatory either. But I don't agree that it's an issue regarding the state mandating "what medications people must take," rather it's a child protection issue.

Making poor decisions about your own well-being is ultimately your own lookout; making poor decisions regarding someone else may well justify intervention to protect them from their idiot parents.

I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with mandatory vaccination, but I am sure that comparing it to adult medication is a straw man.

The keypoint not being taken into account is that the children are not choosing the idiot parents are.

Contrary to the general acceptance of vaccination on here I am personally unconvinced of their effectiveness. I have read extensively on the topic, but i would say I have been looking at pre-1980 studies at this point. I am aware things have changed but am still being open minded to it.

I personally have had all my vaccinations. My wife however hasn't had any, her mum got a major scare with her older brother who was allergic to egg white. The doctor said it would have likely disabled him. So she made a decision to not vaccinate the rest of their kids.

The fundamental belief that I disagree with is that getting ill is bad for your health. There have been a few recent studies showing a startling connection with the absence of illness in Children leading to leukaemia.

They are now experimenting with the herpes virus and finding it effective against fighting skin cancer. Essentially triggering your immune system to recognise the cancerous cells and destroy them. There is similar research going on with polio and certain types of cancers.

I am not saying I have all the answers, quite the opposite, but I object to this promotion of vaccination as the answer to all of our problems. It is cited and advertised as 'the best protection' in those words. Thats bullshit, the best protection you can have is good hygiene standards, clean/warm and dry housing, and good diet and exercise.

NZ (where im living) has an astounding number of respiratory diseases for a first world country, the reason is due to poor housing standards and nothing to do with vaccination

@cougar - as I say tough one to call and have enjoyed a pretty mature debate (certainly by STW standards)!

@anagallis - there are thousands of decisions parents make that may or may not adversely affect their children's health, wellbeing and future prospects; do we legislate on them all.

That is what parental responsibility comes in.

I got babybgoode vaccinated but if I found out another child at his nursery hadn't - whilst think their parents mad, misguided fools I would still defend their right to choose what [i]they[/i] think best for [i]their[/i] child.

It is cited and advertised as 'the best protection' in those words. Thats bullshit, the best protection you can have is good hygiene standards, clean/warm and dry housing, and good diet and exercise.

I am personally unconvinced of their effectiveness.

Fortunately for the rest of us, their efficacy does not require your belief. This isn't Homeopathy we're discussing. Come back when you've contracted polio and we'll talk.

The fundamental belief that I disagree with is that getting ill is bad for your health. There have been a few recent studies showing a startling connection with the absence of illness in Children leading to leukaemia.

They are now experimenting with the herpes virus and finding it effective against fighting skin cancer. Essentially triggering your immune system to recognise the cancerous cells and destroy them. There is similar research going on with polio and certain types of cancers.

You're disagreeing with a "fundamental belief" which is nothing of the sort. What you describe is exactly how some immunisation works; the smallpox vaccine, as a random example, is a deactivated version of the virus which kicks your body into developing its own immunity.

My wife however hasn't had any, her mum got a major scare with her older brother who was allergic to egg white. The doctor said it would have likely disabled him. So she made a decision to not vaccinate the rest of their kids.

Some people cannot be vaccinated for one reason or another, but we cannot extrapolate from that "all people shouldn't be vaccinated"; in fact, the fact that some people can't have vaccines is precisely why everyone else should.

Thats bullshit, the best protection you can have is good hygiene standards, clean/warm and dry housing, and good diet and exercise.

True fact, people who bathe regularly never get cancer.

This is a non sequitur, is it not? You're arguing against vaccines because other things can make you ill? That's like asserting that it's pointless wearing sunblock because you know someone who was hit by a car.

@danny

I got babybgoode vaccinated but if I found out another child at his nursery hadn't - whilst think their parents mad, misguided fools I would still defend their right to choose what they think best for their child.

Unfortunately it is their decision about what [i]they[/i] think best for [i]other people's[/i] children too.

got babybgoode vaccinated but if I found out another child at his nursery hadn't - whilst think their parents mad, misguided fools I would still defend their right to choose what they think best for their child.

Why? Why can a childs best interests be thrown away due to the facts their parents are idiots?

The fundamental belief that I disagree with is that getting ill is bad for your health

First class gibberish well done sir

They have chosen not to get their children vaccinated. Now,whether they are right or wrong in that decision, should the State be able to drag the children kicking and screaming and against their parents will and foreceably inject them with drugs their parents fundamentally disagree with?

Yup the state should be allowed to do so.

That or the children should be barred from any public space, that the state operates.

@anagallis - there are thousands of decisions parents make that may or may not adversely affect their children's health, wellbeing and future prospects; do we legislate on them all.

If those decisions kill other people, yes.

The fundamental belief that I disagree with is that getting ill is bad for your health. There have been a few recent studies showing a startling connection with the absence of illness in Children leading to leukaemia.

Generally, things that can kill you are bad for your health.

The anti-vaccination campaigns could only happen in societies where most illnesses had been eradicated due to previous successful vaccination programmes. Or in primitive societies where it was seen as a form of witchcraft.

I was astounded as a kid when I learned how many of my parents friends had died in childhood, and polio scythed through my generation.

And as an adult with an interest in genealogy, the deathrate in my grandparents generation was even worse. On one side out of 10 siblings, 5 survived childhood. These were people who understood hygiene and were scrupulous about it - they knew about "germs".

Save your anti-vaccination stance for consenting adults, but protect your kids.

@epicylo you should go chug on a big flagon of ZMAPP

What on earth does that have to do with anything?

@epicyclo-who's being anti-vax?

I certainly am not. I'm very pro vaccination and strongly believe that children should be vaccinated but I also firmly believe that if a parent is firmly against vaccination then they should be able to make that decision.

There's good reasons why we don't vaccinate against chickenpox; it increases the risk of shingles in adulthood. (I don't remember the actual logic, would have to google.)

Oh I wouldn't advocate vaccination of children - it's too contagious and needs too high coverage for proper herd immunity. It's for the few percent who escape infection to adulthood that require catch-up that I would vaccinate.

The [url= http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1501184 ]shingles vaccine[/url] also looks very promising for immune boosting. I'll want it in time!

As the dad of a child who had an allergic reaction to a vaccine at 4 months old, I can see why some would be reluctant to vaccinate. It was a very scary experience.

What I don't understand about the vaccine argument is that there are loads of other examples of group behaviour that leads to many thousands of deaths, but does not receive the same mouth frothing reaction. Air pollution leads to 29,000 deaths in the UK alone. Where are the mouth frothers on this point? Calling on all cars to be banned etc... Mouth frothers, can you explain please ? If you were really concerned about other people's kids and the infirm you would be campaigning about this as well.

We left the vaccine program for a while and came back to them later. As a parent, that has to be my choice.

As a parent, that has to be my choice.

Providing sperm doesnt make you best placed to make such decisions

So in other words your children in effect become state property?

So in other words your children in effect become state property?

Better then them being the property of idiot parents.

What I don't understand about the vaccine argument is that there are loads of other examples of group behaviour that leads to many thousands of deaths, but does not receive the same mouth frothing reaction. Air pollution leads to 29,000 deaths in the UK alone. Where are the mouth frothers on this point? Calling on all cars to be banned etc...

Easy, cars serve a utilitarian value to the economy that at the moment outweighs people not dying - without them a lot more people would dying due to reverting back to an 1800's economy. People getting sick doesn't serve the economy or society, although I guess more old people dying might.