All parents should be allowed to choose whether or not to vaccinate their kids
The government should require vaccines for all children attending public schools
Parents who don't vaccinate their kids should be subject to child neglect laws
The government should require vaccines for everyone
Vaccines should be required, but people with legitimate religious objections should be exempted
Some vaccines should be banned until they are made safe
Supreme Court vaccine ruling: parents can't sue drug makers for kids' health problems - Crimesider - CBS News
(AP) WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a federal law prohibits lawsuits against drug makers over serious side effects from childhood vaccines.
The court voted 6-2 against the parents of a child who sued the drug maker Wyeth in Pennsylvania state court, for the health problems they say their daughter, now 19, suffered from a vaccine she received in infancy.
U.S. apologizes for STD experiments in Guatemala - Health - Sexual health - msnbc.com
U.S. government medical researchers intentionally infected hundreds of people in Guatemala, including institutionalized mental patients, with gonorrhea and syphilis without their knowledge or permission more than 60 years ago.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Parents have a right to choose (along with the child him/herself) in all cases except those where excessive harm is done to the child. For example, a parent can't choose to cut off their child's hand. A parent also can't choose to starve their child as a punishment. The list goes on. In these cases the safety of the child is in question and the government should intervene.
As for this case... any child going to a public school should be required to be vaccinated (because of health issues at the school, and the danger to others). Should parents be subject to child neglect laws on this? Well it depends what they're vaccinating against. If you're vaccinating against the regular flu then obviously not, but if there was a sufficient risk that the child would contract a disease, then I suppose you could hold parents liable. It's all a question of degrees.
The government absolutely should not be deciding which religious reasons are "legitimate". Seems to me that religion is 100% irrelevant to this case. Being religious shouldn't exempt you from the law, if you're religious you fit your religion around the law of the land. Fundamentalist Muslims can't cut off their child's hand for stealing; Fundamentalist Christians or whatever else can't prevent their child from being vaccinated because of their religious convictions, in the case that it IS abusive to deny the child the vaccine.
The very definition of a religiously tyrannical government is one that attempts to decide which religions are "valid". Government should have no opinion on religion.
It recieves my:
Keep rocking DP.
Vaccinations for all.
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Even if I thought everyone did vaccinate - I'd still do it. . . because my husband and others travel internationally - and we are in contacts with others who travel from other countries into the US.
A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
The epidemics of the past were due to vaccines not being invented yet, so people had no choice but to be negatively exposed. In today's world, if they're being exposed in the U.S. it's because of their choices, and honestly I'm okay with that. Most infectious diseases are either directly curable or the medical system is advanced to a stage where they can be put on supportive therapy while their own body does the work. Since the U.S. has no universal health care, that means the person or their insurance company foots the bill. I don't have a problem with that.