Thread: Should MMR jabs be compulsory?

Originally Posted by _Artemis_

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

On a legal front, the NHS should withdraw payment for treatment for those who have refused the jab (not those who have been refused on medical grounds).

You then, quite literally, visit the sins of the fathers upon the sons: if a parent decides not to vaccinate little Jimmy, then, on your scheme, Jimmy won't get state funded treatment, even though it's not his fault he wasn't immunised.

Fully agree Arte.

But little Jimmy's treatment will be something the parents know that they must now pay for.

At a certain age, Bigger Little Jimmy can decide for himself if he wants the jab or not.

Originally Posted by _Artemis_

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

On a legal front, the NHS should withdraw payment for treatment for those who have refused the jab (not those who have been refused on medical grounds).

You then, quite literally, visit the sins of the fathers upon the sons: if a parent decides not to vaccinate little Jimmy, then, on your scheme, Jimmy won't get state funded treatment, even though it's not his fault he wasn't immunised.

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

People may have the rght to decide to do whatever they wish with their own offspring, whether on personal or religious grounds and within the law...

People don't have the right to do what they wish with their own offspring, though: children have to be educated, they can't be locked in cupboards (more's the pity) etc. In medical contexts, parents' decisions are frequently over-ruled by the courts. It would be pretty alarming if parents did have carte blanche to do whatever they liked - it would turn children into chattels, rather than beings with rights. So where should the balance be struck between State intervention necessary to protect children, and State interference with family life?

Try reading the whole sentence...I added 'within the law'. You appear to have 'overlooked' that.

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?

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

Originally Posted by _Artemis_

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

On a legal front, the NHS should withdraw payment for treatment for those who have refused the jab (not those who have been refused on medical grounds).

You then, quite literally, visit the sins of the fathers upon the sons: if a parent decides not to vaccinate little Jimmy, then, on your scheme, Jimmy won't get state funded treatment, even though it's not his fault he wasn't immunised.

Fully agree Arte.

But little Jimmy's treatment will be something the parents know that they must now pay for.

At a certain age, Bigger Little Jimmy can decide for himself if he wants the jab or not.

It shouldn;t be up to them at all and there should be no opt out as it is so damaging to thier children and to the community. If parents do not want to vaccinate, then they cannot get free schooling.

I'm not actually certain how much it would prevent it though, because it tends to be middle class people who see themselves as intelligent who end up making retarded decisions based on non-science that they though ude novo, like childrens immune systems being 'overwhelmed' by the triple jab.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

It shouldn;t be up to them at all and there should be no opt out as it is so damaging to thier children and to the community. If parents do not want to vaccinate, then they cannot get free schooling.

Actually, it should be up to me... as a parent.

It wasn't that long ago that it was being bandied that MMR caused autism. Appreciate that NOW we know that was all b0110X, however at the time, had your child been "due" for a jab at that time, would you blythly allow the "man" to jab your child?

I for one would have bopped someone on the snoz for it.

The school bit is a fair point.

I dunno c_f, I remember the furore when the Wakefield study hit the press, (the whole issue caused huge arguments between me and my missus - me being pro-vaccine, she being anti).

Unlike many others I took the scandal as an opportunity to find out some more about the issue, I was able to read his study in a copy of the Lancet from the uni library, and the whole thing struck me as somewhat fishy. The methodology of the study was flawed, the number of "subjects" were to small to make meaningful comparisons with other data, and some further rooting around led to me finding that Dr Wakefield was at the time trying to peddle his own vaccine. There were string instances of conflict of interest surrounding the whole issue.

I was fortunate enough to grow up in the Middle East and Africa, so I routinely saw with my own eyes the effects of these terrible diseases, I even caught measles myself (I had been vaccinated, which meant my body was able to deal with it quickly).

The post war generations here in the UK, or to be more specific those born from the 60s onwards, are in a unique position compared to those who went before. For the first time in our history death & debilatation are not everyday occurences, we have forgotton what these things can do, so many, ignorantly unfortunately, have no concept of the dangers and blithely through caution to the wind.

I can understand the parental desire to protect the child, there is a huge, huge amount of emotion involved in it, but should not that make it more urgent for us to understand these thing root and branch, and not to base our decisions on the whims of emotion?

Edited 'cos I was a muppet with names

Rampant - all excellent points, the UK Asian community has good uptake of MMR, probably because there are members of the extended family who have seen measles and congenital rubella syndrome in their country of origin. BTW it was Wakefield not Wakeman who had the "study" published in The Lancet.

Why is this still being discussed?It would be nigh on immpossible to make mmr compulsory without a whole raft of other measures. What about compulsory testing for HIV, Hepatitis in all its forms and every other type of immunisations , just look at the moralists with HPV (and that will reduce cervical cancer!). My children have had everything going given to them, and they are all right no bad effects or memories. Just do it and protect them.

Originally Posted by Jacques_Bustard

Rampant - all excellent points, the UK Asian community has good uptake of MMR, probably because there are members of the extended family who have seen measles and congenital rubella syndrome in their country of origin. BTW it was Wakefield not Wakeman who had the "study" published in The Lancet.

My bad. Most unlike me to be inaccurate.

Originally Posted by 1stgulfmac

Why is this still being discussed?It would be nigh on immpossible to make mmr compulsory without a whole raft of other measures. What about compulsory testing for HIV, Hepatitis in all its forms and every other type of immunisations , just look at the moralists with HPV (and that will reduce cervical cancer!). My children have had everything going given to them, and they are all right no bad effects or memories. Just do it and protect them.

Good idea. Seriously. And my kids have, and will have all the neccesary jabs to keep them safe (although, until proven otherwise, I would (had it been neccesary at teh time) have not had the MMR jab for the youngest.

I was never that queasy about taking kids to umpteen jabs, it IS obvious though that many are.

Compulsory screenings SHOULD occur. Isn't UK the leader in STDs? Two options here. Let chlamydia sterilise all the morons (natural selection innit) whilst advertising voluntary screenings (like have been conducted) or bring in all the kids who at the age to be sexually active (no idea where that may start ) and screen them for STDs, and HIV.

And all the other nasties.

Make it manitory that all immigrants must have the various jabs too. No jab, go home. No proof needed just jab, jab, jab.

THe NHS should be funded to really open up on preventative maintainence rather than aftercare.

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

Originally Posted by _Artemis_

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

People may have the rght to decide to do whatever they wish with their own offspring, whether on personal or religious grounds and within the law...

People don't have the right to do what they wish with their own offspring, though: children have to be educated, they can't be locked in cupboards (more's the pity) etc. In medical contexts, parents' decisions are frequently over-ruled by the courts. It would be pretty alarming if parents did have carte blanche to do whatever they liked - it would turn children into chattels, rather than beings with rights. So where should the balance be struck between State intervention necessary to protect children, and State interference with family life?

Try reading the whole sentence...I added 'within the law'. You appear to have 'overlooked' that.

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 didn't pay enough attention to your post and didn't note "within the law" - apologies. I'll re-word: 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?

On your frequency question: I can't give you precise statistics, but knowing the exact frequency isn't necessary to the point I was making: what's important is that it's established in law that parents do not always have the right to make decisions about their children - the parent does not always know best.

There are numerous recent cases pertaining to this - here are some of the most interesting: there is no case where an English Court has failed to order a blood transfusion for a child against the wishes of Jehovah's Witness parents (Critical care decisions in fetal and neonatal medicine: ethical issues, Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Ch 8.). The 2000 conjoined twins Jodie and Mary were separated after a High Court judge ruled that this should happen, as per medical advice, against the wishes of the parents. Just this year, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgement that the ventilator of a child known only as "OT" could be turned off, against the wishes of his parents. In 1999, Camden Council Social Services secured a High Court judgement that a baby should be tested for HIV against the wishes of the parents. The examples go on and on. Again, where should the balance be struck between State intervention necessary to protect children, and State interference with family life?

I'm an old fart but what's all the fuss about? MM&R are all contagious. Why not go back to the tried and tested immunisation method - send the kids off to play with the first child in the area that gets it. It worked for me and millions of others...

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

Originally Posted by jew_unit

It shouldn;t be up to them at all and there should be no opt out as it is so damaging to thier children and to the community. If parents do not want to vaccinate, then they cannot get free schooling.

Actually, it should be up to me... as a parent.

It wasn't that long ago that it was being bandied that MMR caused autism. Appreciate that NOW we know that was all b0110X, however at the time, had your child been "due" for a jab at that time, would you blythly allow the "man" to jab your child?

I for one would have bopped someone on the snoz for it.

The school bit is a fair point.

Just becuase you are the parent doesn't give you an absolute right over anything. Are you allowed to put young kids on a trapeze act simply bacuse you are the parent? No, because they may fall and die. Similarly, you should be forced to have your kids vaccinated because those who actually understand the science realise that your child is at serious risk without it and, more importantly, that other kids will be in danger as well simply because of the blind and selfish actins of parents who believe they know best.

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

Originally Posted by _Artemis_

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

On a legal front, the NHS should withdraw payment for treatment for those who have refused the jab (not those who have been refused on medical grounds).

You then, quite literally, visit the sins of the fathers upon the sons: if a parent decides not to vaccinate little Jimmy, then, on your scheme, Jimmy won't get state funded treatment, even though it's not his fault he wasn't immunised.

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

People may have the rght to decide to do whatever they wish with their own offspring, whether on personal or religious grounds and within the law...

People don't have the right to do what they wish with their own offspring, though: children have to be educated, they can't be locked in cupboards (more's the pity) etc. In medical contexts, parents' decisions are frequently over-ruled by the courts. It would be pretty alarming if parents did have carte blanche to do whatever they liked - it would turn children into chattels, rather than beings with rights. So where should the balance be struck between State intervention necessary to protect children, and State interference with family life?

Try reading the whole sentence...I added 'within the law'. You appear to have 'overlooked' that.

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.

Originally Posted by _Artemis_

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

Originally Posted by _Artemis_

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

People may have the rght to decide to do whatever they wish with their own offspring, whether on personal or religious grounds and within the law...

People don't have the right to do what they wish with their own offspring, though: children have to be educated, they can't be locked in cupboards (more's the pity) etc. In medical contexts, parents' decisions are frequently over-ruled by the courts. It would be pretty alarming if parents did have carte blanche to do whatever they liked - it would turn children into chattels, rather than beings with rights. So where should the balance be struck between State intervention necessary to protect children, and State interference with family life?

Try reading the whole sentence...I added 'within the law'. You appear to have 'overlooked' that.

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 didn't pay enough attention to your post and didn't note "within the law" - apologies. I'll re-word: 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?

On your frequency question: I can't give you precise statistics, but knowing the exact frequency isn't necessary to the point I was making: what's important is that it's established in law that parents do not always have the right to make decisions about their children - the parent does not always know best.

There are numerous recent cases pertaining to this - here are some of the most interesting: there is no case where an English Court has failed to order a blood transfusion for a child against the wishes of Jehovah's Witness parents (Critical care decisions in fetal and neonatal medicine: ethical issues, Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Ch 8.). The 2000 conjoined twins Jodie and Mary were separated after a High Court judge ruled that this should happen, as per medical advice, against the wishes of the parents. Just this year, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgement that the ventilator of a child known only as "OT" could be turned off, against the wishes of his parents. In 1999, Camden Council Social Services secured a High Court judgement that a baby should be tested for HIV against the wishes of the parents. The examples go on and on. Again, 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.

Originally Posted by jew_unit

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

Originally Posted by _Artemis_

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

On a legal front, the NHS should withdraw payment for treatment for those who have refused the jab (not those who have been refused on medical grounds).

You then, quite literally, visit the sins of the fathers upon the sons: if a parent decides not to vaccinate little Jimmy, then, on your scheme, Jimmy won't get state funded treatment, even though it's not his fault he wasn't immunised.

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

People may have the rght to decide to do whatever they wish with their own offspring, whether on personal or religious grounds and within the law...

People don't have the right to do what they wish with their own offspring, though: children have to be educated, they can't be locked in cupboards (more's the pity) etc. In medical contexts, parents' decisions are frequently over-ruled by the courts. It would be pretty alarming if parents did have carte blanche to do whatever they liked - it would turn children into chattels, rather than beings with rights. So where should the balance be struck between State intervention necessary to protect children, and State interference with family life?

Try reading the whole sentence...I added 'within the law'. You appear to have 'overlooked' that.

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.

It would be interesting to see if any are in existence. I doubt that it would be as frequent an issue as you believe, but I'm willing to stand corrected on that. The last line of your post goes without saying.