May 15 2008
Talk of vaccination
Is there a meaningful difference between
- someone who won’t vaccinate their child because it will give them autism
- someone who won’t vaccinate their child because it promotes promiscuous sex
And having asked that, what do you think about compulsory vaccination? I haven’t thought about it yet and I’m ready for bed. Comments please!
Q1: Yes, they are different reasons - both wrong of course.
Q2: Of course vaccination should be compulsory. Parents should not have the right to bring up their child as they wish interfered with by the state except to meet minimum standards of education and health - the child’s right to be vaccinated properly overrules the parent’s right to be uninformed and stupid.
I agree with the above comment.
Well, they both sacrifice the health of a child on the altar of some unsupportable and antiscientific beliefs. In either case there is no evidence for the claim, or firm evidence against it.
Because of my belief in X, I believe that treatment Y will cause an increase in Z which I hold to be much worse than the disease which Y treats. Fill in for autism, toxins, promiscuity and so on.
As for the second part, I think you’re right. The “parent’s right to choose” seems to work on the assumption that the child is the property of its parent.
Are you saying the child is instead the property of the state?
The second argument in your original post is a new one on me, where is it from? I would however say that there’s a big difference, since the first argument is physical (or at least medical), where as the second would appear to be psychological.
The child isn’t the property of the state or the parents. The point is that the parents and the state have a duty of care for the child. If the parents fail in that duty then it is the state’s responsibility to provide a minimum of care.
And where exactly do you draw that line? Can you definitively state that not being immunised poses a serious enough risk to the child for the state to override the parents wishes? And is it right to assume that the state knows better?
The state and the people are not separate entities. We the people are the state, and we have already decided that the state should ensure a minimum of protection for children. Parents do not have the right to deny the basics of health provision or childcare for their children. That is already enshrined in law. That’s not open for debate.
What is open for debate is whether vaccination falls within that minimum of protection. It’s a tricky one because there are a lot of stupid or religious people out there who want to withhold things like vaccination from their children - but we ought to be bold, and stand up for the rights and well being of the child in cases like this.
In this case - yes it is obvious right to assume the state knows better, because the state wants to do things on the basis of scientific evidence while the parent wants to withhold vaccination on the basis of religion and more general stupidity.
Nick, regarding the vaccination-promotes-promiscuity argument, it’s been a fairly staple point raised by the religious pressure groups both here and in the US for the last year. Rhetorically Speaking has been covering the issue fairly consistently — this post is probably the most succinct example of the argument in action. If I remember correctly it’s also been the subject of a cover story in the BMJ and is regularly brought out by the hate mongers at the Daily Mail.
Not being vaccinated not only poses a direct risk to the child, it also reduces the herd immunity of the population (which is irresponsible when there will always be people for whom the vaccination is not an option or not effective). Some diseases are not particularly bad for grown adults but will have serious affects on unborn children — rubella being a good example. Others are okay if you’re fit and healthy but if you give it to someone who is frail or has a suppressed immune system the effects are devastating. This is the reason why flu jabs are always suggested for the general population, so that you don’t get a short bout of flu and then give it to your grandmother in the process.
I am all for compulsory vaccinations and I think the media have a hell of a lot to answer for, especially in the case of the MMR/ autism debacle. It annoys me beyond belief that the research discrediting the link was not reported on as widely or in the same sensationalist way. I do not think there is a meaningful difference between the two - both have their root in a lack of understanding and knowledge. Speaking as someone who would have benefited hugely from the HPV vaccine, I cannot see the sense in allowing extreme conservatives to influence public health decisions. I wonder if it were boys that were to be vaccinated would there be any difference in the right wing opinion?