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?
What complete totalitarian crap.
Just for the record, my eldest child has autism and all 3 of my children were given the MMR vaccine. I do NOT believe there is a link.
BUT if having had an autistic child someone didn’t want to risk the MMR vaccine on any following children then why the hell shouldn’t they have that right?
The MMR vaccine might not cause autism - but perhaps it could exarcebate the effects? Unlikely, but that’s not the point. The point is that only the parents should decide. Ultimately in the overwhelming majority of cases parents have much better understanding and concerns for their children than complete strangers.
And what’s with Emily’s bringing up vaccination for boys affecting “right-wing” opinion? I have never been right-wing but if this rubbish is left-wing maybe I should re-assess my position.
And as for the “Herd Immunity”, give me strength. If you are sensible and have had the vaccine then you will realise that the problem is primarily for those who haven’t been vaccinated, not for those sensible enough to have had the jab. It’s called free will. They have a right to decide what does or does not enter their bodies. Or are you going to start arguing for force-feeding meat to vegetarians next?
So you (1) don’t believe there’s a link but (2) if someone has an autistic child then further use of the MMR is a risk? Which is it to be David? Is there a link in your opinion or not?
Have you been paying attention at all? Because these parents with the better understanding have caused the vaccination rate to drop dramatically in the UK, and infection by the corresponding diseases have gone up as a consequence.
Clearly reading the posts is beyond you so let me summarise: HPV is the principal cause of cervical cancer. HPV infections come from sex. Nice girls don’t have sex. Cervical cancer is the stick the religious right are using to enforce their morality.
It’s not strength you need, it’s reading comprehension. As already stated: “there will always be people for whom the vaccination is not an option or not effective”.
I’m a bit surprised about the religious right’s opposition to HPV vaccination.
Now I’m on the inside - I have seen that opposition to free contraception (which is perhaps analogous from their perspective let’s assume) is focussed on the message the comes with the condoms (usually a kind of ‘having sex is great, especially if it’s someone you just met in a bar’ message). The issue from their perspective is more about the promotion of sex outside of marriage as a good thing, rather than the idea that bad stuff happening outside of marriage (STDs, cancer, etc) is itself good.
Which is why their opposition to HPV vaccination is odd.
I suppose there are some who think that anything that makes promiscuity have fewer negative consequences is a bad thing. I wonder if this is a case of a minority having a large voice (which could easily be the case if the ‘leaders’ are the idiots). Thankfully the church in the UK as a whole isn’t like this.
“is focussed on the message the comes with the condoms (usually a kind of ‘having sex is great, especially if it’s someone you just met in a bar’ message)”
should read
“is focussed on the message the comes with the condoms (usually a kind of ‘having sex is great, especially if it’s someone you just met in a bar’ message), rather than free contraception itself.”
“The MMR vaccine might not cause autism - but perhaps it could exarcebate the effects? Unlikely, but that’s not the point. The point is that only the parents should decide.:
I’d feel a lot safer if qualified professionals were deciding if MMR causes autism rather than parents who are getting their information from the Daily Mail. Yes, there is a certain level of sympathy that can be given for a lot of parents who don’t have the access to information that a lot of us do and therefore need to believe what they are fed from the media but that doesn’t make it right. Immunisations programs are one of, if not the most successful healthcare intervention modern medicine has given to the world and they should be enforced. As a parent of an autistic child, you will be aware that one the major problems in the MMR/ autism debate is that the vaccination is given around the time that the signs of autism start to become obvious. The MMR can be used as a scapegoat for scared, desperate parents who can only see that the ‘normal’ child they thought they had has suddenly changed not long after receiving the jab. When lay opinion and scientific truth clash in such a way it must be left to higher organisations to settle the debate.
“If you are sensible and have had the vaccine then you will realise that the problem is primarily for those who haven’t been vaccinated, not for those sensible enough to have had the jab. It’s called free will.”
So what you’re saying is that none of us have any responsibility to wider society? As long as me and my own are safe that’s ok? Modern society cannot function with such a selfish view and even if the decision to protect the population is enforced at a governmental level, in some cases, that is what should be done. What happens to the children who despite confidence and belief in vaccinations are unable to have them for genuinely legitimate biological reasons who then go to school with the children of those parents who exercised their free will not to get vaccinated? This is why herd immunity is so important. The strong should protect the weak. Fine, DON’T immunise your child but don’t then expect to be allowed to send your child to a state-run school.
And you’re honestly telling me that you don’t think ‘if you’re a girl and you have sex it’ll give you cancer’ isn’t being used by the religious right? Please.
Dougal:
It seems to me that you are the one failing reading comprehension. What is so hard to understand by my comment?
And the point is that why do you get to decide what somebody else does with their own body?
And Emily, where did I say that we did not have any responsibility to wider society? I made the opposite point. A Free Society has a responsibility not to interfere with an individual’s choices about what they do or do not put in their own bodies. That’s the very essence of freedom. If we don’t have that freedom then we are not living in a free society. The State does not own your body - you do.
As for the religious right comment, as a humanist (atheist) I really have no idea (and no interest) in what they say. But I do defend their right to say it, just as I defend our right not to believe it. My daughters will have the vaccine and I will make sure that condoms are in our home for when the inevitable experimentation takes place. But you have to admit one thing - the “religious right” are actually correct when they say that if you abstain from sex you won’t get the Human Papilloma Virus along with its attendant dangers. I don’t happen to think it’s realistic, I certainly had other sexual partners before I was married. But that doesn’t make it wrong.
In short, “First they came for the vaccine refusers…”
are you saying it is the childs choice or the states choice to give vaccinations?
if the child is old enough to make the decision then let them, but if they are to young then i think it should be the parents decision as they should no what is best for said child. i personally feel that all children should be vaccinated because the obvious effect not being vaccinated has, TB is on the rise as children are no longer required to have the vaccinations. i also think that there should be more information given to parents about vaccinations.
i am currently studying vaccinations in my health and social care class and know that alot of the time religion and culture is stopping children having their vaccinations.
x
EMILY
the only link between autism and the mmr vaccine is that the time the mmr vaccine is given i USUALLY the time autism shows itself
I simultaneously agree and fail to see your point.