Thread: Should MMR jabs be compulsory?

Originally Posted by scoobydont

Another giant step forward in the march of the nanny state.
Why stop there, why not ban over weight kids and kids of parents that smoke?

A ban on fatties??? My God man that is pure genius. Lock em in a bedsit with the parents and a bale of Rothmans. Buggers will be belly up before they are out of their teens. Save the NHS a fortune in reinforced beds.

The issue has cropped up again in the Observer today: Seperate Schools for MMR Dodgers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...tt-mmr-schools

It's maybe a bit of Irony that a day after the 65th anniversary of D-Day and the subsequent battle to rid the world of a single minded, single party and single ideological Dictator that we are now discussing the possible infringement on people's choices whilst supposedly living in a Free and Democratic Society.

Compulsory MMR Jabs..? Maybe it should also be compulsory for everyone that smokes to either pack in smoking or be refused for ANY treatment under the NHS for any condition; and while they're at it why not add alcohol drinkers to the list, or anyone that has ever had unprotected sex. They can also make HIV testing compulsory as well, as well as making community muster parades on a Monday morning a compulsory requirement so that the local unelected community leader can hand out compulsory work for all to do before going off to their own jobs, obviously the compulsory clothing will be Grey, as will the compulsory hat and unlaced shoes.


Which as ever brings us back to this. Maybe people would also be happy for the State to Intercept, Read, Photocopy and store all their personal mail before postman Patski Delivers it to the local unelected community leader for distribution at the same time as they parade to collect their food vouchers.

UK 'must log' phone and web use

All internet and phone traffic should be recorded to help the fight against terrorism, according to one of the UK's former spy chiefs.

Civil rights campaigners have criticised ministers' plans to log details of such contact as "Orwellian".

But Sir David Pepper, who ran the GCHQ listening centre for five years, told the BBC lives would be at risk if the state could not track communication. BBC News Web site

Originally Posted by jew_unit

Originally Posted by 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!

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

Originally Posted by _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 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.

With regards to the substantive point, I agree with your conclusion, but for slightly different reasons. IMO, the primary rationale for MMR jabs being compulsory is that children have a right to a degree of State protection from their parents' whims, especially when it comes to health and education. I see article 8.1 as the most important part of the ECHR, and if we are positing a right to autonomy, there are reasonable grounds for thinking a child has a right to an open future. How we draw the line between State protection and State interference is an interesting question, and one that relates to Hearditallbefore's post - how much intervention is too much? When does protection become harmful?

Originally Posted by exbleep

Give a young baby a measles injection and they have to wait a month before they can get their next injection for mumps. That means they are unprotected against mumps and rubella for a month. Give them the mumps vaccine and you have to wait another month before the rubella meaning no protection for that period. Give them the triple at one go and it is all finished.
1 GP says it might cause autism, 500 say it doesn't so they believe the 1 GP? Bit silly, really.
Also, nurses are pretty hard pushed to fit everyone in to get the triple vac done on time, three jabs would triple their work each time so a lot of kids would, inevitably, be missed. If 90% of the population isn't vaccinated, any of these strains could infect the others as the risks go up. So why not make it compulsory before getting free, state education? If that happened, I reckon the government would have to offer individual vaccines to allay the fears (rightly or wrongly) of those who object to the triple vac but, hey, at least everyone would be vaccinated then.
These vaccines have been around for decades. I remember the 50s when lots of kids missed loads of school time with measles and one of the lads in my class died. Thankfully, we are not at that stage yet but it is making a comeback as the uptake is now less than 80% which will affect many more kids.
Rubella can be very dangerous, especially for girls over puberty. It can cause pre-natal deaths if contracted by a pregnant woman and used to lead to deformities and mental retardation. (Also known as German measles).
Mumps can be dangerous, especially in an adult as it can cause breathing difficulties and oxygen deprivation. It is making a comeback especially among teenagers and young adults.

if you had a baby that was healthly and after a 3inone mmr turned into a dribbling shoitying baby ? think about it!!!

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.

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?

[quote="_Artemis_"]

Originally Posted by jew_unit

Originally Posted by 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!

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

Originally Posted by _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 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.

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by _Artemis_

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by 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!