Back to top
Skip to menu
Skip to content
Wakefield's "research" has been conclusively disproved, as previous posters have commented. Perhaps the reason why there was anecdotal evidence to support the putative link is because the age at which children have the triple vaccine is typically the age at which many types of autism start to manifest?
I think you're wrong there: the Racial and Religious Hatred Act seems to refer to threats made on the grounds of race and activity that would disrupt public order. It doesn't seem to apply to privately expressed statements within the home.
Wakefield's "research" has been conclusively disproved, as previous posters have commented. Perhaps the reason why there was anecdotal evidence to support the putative link is because the age at which children have the triple vaccine is typically the age at which many types of autism start to manifest?
I think you're wrong there: the Racial and Religious Hatred Act seems to refer to threats made on the grounds of race and activity that would disrupt public order. It doesn't seem to apply to privately expressed statements within the home.
Fair play to you, I've just read it. Begs the question though, what liability would Cletus & Sue Ellen have if their offspring buggered off out one night and against strict instruction just to hate and not to kill, they stabbed someone to death in a racially motivated attack? I would imagine that their representatives would plead that they would never have done such a thing if their minds hadn't been poisoned in the first place? Which leads you to wonder if this may have already happened.
Amyway, MMR.....mandatory!
From The Daily Politics:
Re: Should MMR jabs be compulsory?
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:32 am
I remember the day when someone in our street had measles. there was no panic but we all visited said sicko. 1956.
howver one of the local kids "did the usual measles" thing and became very sick.
So sick in fact is now in a wheelchsir. sorry, now dead. 1958.
The method of ALL 3 injections in the 1960's over three weeks was not a problem.
After all, every school had a NHS nurse there to ensure everyone (child)had the weekly inspection for nits, flees etc and the usual Measles. mumps. rubella, polio blah blah jab.
MMR is Just another way to save money.
Oh and reduce the medical care that a 1st world country pays for.
So keep paying your money for an ever increasing third world country medical system.
howver one of the local kids "did the usual measles" thing and became very sick.
So sick in fact is now in a wheelchsir. sorry, now dead. 1958.
The method of ALL 3 injections in the 1960's over three weeks was not a problem.
After all, every school had a NHS nurse there to ensure everyone (child)had the weekly inspection for nits, flees etc and the usual Measles. mumps. rubella, polio blah blah jab.
MMR is Just another way to save money.
Oh and reduce the medical care that a 1st world country pays for.
So keep paying your money for an ever increasing third world country medical system.

oldgoat
- Posts: 907
- Joined: Mar 02, 2008
- Location: closest I will get to a gobble
Re: Should MMR jabs be compulsory?
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:32 am
I don't get the criticism that MMR is 'just a way to save money'?!? Cash is in short supply, so the less spent on basic vaccines the better surely?
I see no reason why taxes should cover a more expensive alternative that delivers the same result?
I see no reason why taxes should cover a more expensive alternative that delivers the same result?

whyohwhy
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Nov 10, 2007
Re: Should MMR jabs be compulsory?
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:47 am
[quote="_Artemis_"]
I cannot provide statistics (I'm still looking on pubmed), but it is very often indeed. If the doctor feels that the parent is not acting in the best interests of the child then they will almost always seek a court order. In most circumstances, this will be granted. This means that the vast majority of harmful parental decisions will be overruled.
I've also had another look for stats and can't find any (sounds like there's a paper waiting to be written!), but given the number of cases that make it to medical and bioethics publications, it's reasonable to conclude it's a regular occurence. I accept that this won't be convincing to people that haven't had to trawl through the wretched things!
It was a bit unfair of me to request that from you, so apologies for the arrogance, but in response to your key point, I do feel that the issue of responsibility is one to the greater good not the individual. I would support compulsory innoculation. Personally I do not support the right to religious belief (Art. 9 ECHR) over the right to life (Art. 2 ECHR).
As an aside, I think you'll find that incitement to racial hatred might be beaking the law.
Yep, that's why I emphasised the bit in bold
Entirely possible to bring your child up to hate people that aren't white, without enciting them to carry out acts forbidden by law. An example of a parental practice that's legally permissable but (presumably) morally unacceptable[quote].
Getting away from the original point in question, but I would imagine that bringing up your kids to be racist, would be considered as incitement to racial hatred.
jew_unit:
Biscuits_AB:
As an aside, it would be beneficial to the argument you are trying to create if you evidenced the frequency 'within a medical context' whereby parents decisions are overruled by the Courts? Might lend some credence to your argument don't you think?
I cannot provide statistics (I'm still looking on pubmed), but it is very often indeed. If the doctor feels that the parent is not acting in the best interests of the child then they will almost always seek a court order. In most circumstances, this will be granted. This means that the vast majority of harmful parental decisions will be overruled.
I've also had another look for stats and can't find any (sounds like there's a paper waiting to be written!), but given the number of cases that make it to medical and bioethics publications, it's reasonable to conclude it's a regular occurence. I accept that this won't be convincing to people that haven't had to trawl through the wretched things!
Biscuits_AB:
_Artemis_:
do parents really have the right to do what they like with their kids, so long as it's within the law? For example, it's not against the law to bring your child up to hate Jewish people (as long as you don't incite them to carry out acts forbidden by law), but most of us would probably hold that to do so isn't morally right. So where should the balance be struck between State intervention necessary to protect children, and State interference with family life?
It was a bit unfair of me to request that from you, so apologies for the arrogance, but in response to your key point, I do feel that the issue of responsibility is one to the greater good not the individual. I would support compulsory innoculation. Personally I do not support the right to religious belief (Art. 9 ECHR) over the right to life (Art. 2 ECHR).
As an aside, I think you'll find that incitement to racial hatred might be beaking the law.
Yep, that's why I emphasised the bit in bold
Getting away from the original point in question, but I would imagine that bringing up your kids to be racist, would be considered as incitement to racial hatred.

Biscuits_AB
- Posts: 17556
- Joined: Jul 15, 2003
Re: Should MMR jabs be compulsory?
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:06 pm
oldgoat:
if you had a baby that was healthly and after a 3inone mmr turned into a dribbling shoitying baby ? think about it!!!
Wakefield's "research" has been conclusively disproved, as previous posters have commented. Perhaps the reason why there was anecdotal evidence to support the putative link is because the age at which children have the triple vaccine is typically the age at which many types of autism start to manifest?
Biscuits_AB:
Getting away from the original point in question, but I would imagine that bringing up your kids to be racist, would be considered as incitement to racial hatred.
I think you're wrong there: the Racial and Religious Hatred Act seems to refer to threats made on the grounds of race and activity that would disrupt public order. It doesn't seem to apply to privately expressed statements within the home.

_Artemis_
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Jun 29, 2006
Re: Should MMR jabs be compulsory?
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:20 pm
_Artemis_:
oldgoat:
if you had a baby that was healthly and after a 3inone mmr turned into a dribbling shoitying baby ? think about it!!!
Wakefield's "research" has been conclusively disproved, as previous posters have commented. Perhaps the reason why there was anecdotal evidence to support the putative link is because the age at which children have the triple vaccine is typically the age at which many types of autism start to manifest?
Biscuits_AB:
Getting away from the original point in question, but I would imagine that bringing up your kids to be racist, would be considered as incitement to racial hatred.
I think you're wrong there: the Racial and Religious Hatred Act seems to refer to threats made on the grounds of race and activity that would disrupt public order. It doesn't seem to apply to privately expressed statements within the home.
Fair play to you, I've just read it. Begs the question though, what liability would Cletus & Sue Ellen have if their offspring buggered off out one night and against strict instruction just to hate and not to kill, they stabbed someone to death in a racially motivated attack? I would imagine that their representatives would plead that they would never have done such a thing if their minds hadn't been poisoned in the first place? Which leads you to wonder if this may have already happened.
Amyway, MMR.....mandatory!

Biscuits_AB
- Posts: 17556
- Joined: Jul 15, 2003
All times are GMT
| Home
| Sitemap
| Search
| Last 50
| Complain
| Contact
| Advertise
| Help!
| Kit Shop
| Navy Net
| Rear Party
| Jobs
| Yr Acct/Login
| Join ARRSE

