View Poll Results: Should the government require vaccines?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • All parents should be allowed to choose whether or not to vaccinate their kids

    9 26.47%
  • The government should require vaccines for all children attending public schools

    18 52.94%
  • Parents who don't vaccinate their kids should be subject to child neglect laws

    5 14.71%
  • The government should require vaccines for everyone

    6 17.65%
  • Vaccines should be required, but people with legitimate religious objections should be exempted

    5 14.71%
  • Some vaccines should be banned until they are made safe

    10 29.41%
  • Other

    4 11.76%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 43 of 43

Thread: Government policy on vaccines

  1. #41
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Government policy on vaccines

    Quote Originally Posted by Temporal View Post
    Looking at it that way is pure economics and I agree with the logic, but from a personal responsibility standpoint I'm not really bothered. Even if the number of vaccinated people falls to 50%, those people will be protected from disease. In other words they won't get infected. People who are choosing to get infected are choosing to suffer.

    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.
    Not everyone has the choice of being vaccinated. Some people have legitimate medical conditions or allergies that prevents them from getting vaccinated, so they rely on herd immunity. Yes, this is a relatively small percentage of people...but probably not as small as you might think. It's certainly a large enough number to take into account when deciding government policy.

    Furthermore, it's usually kids who need to be vaccinated. There might be some marginal importance in allowing adults to behave like idiots with their own lives (although in this case I'd question it even for adults), but they have less freedom to subject their kids to their idiocy.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #42
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Government policy on vaccines

    Quote Originally Posted by Temporal View Post
    Looking at it that way is pure economics and I agree with the logic, but from a personal responsibility standpoint I'm not really bothered. Even if the number of vaccinated people falls to 50%, those people will be protected from disease. In other words they won't get infected. People who are choosing to get infected are choosing to suffer.
    Normally, I'd agree with this. However, the costs from sickness on that kind of level, not to mention that some of these diseases can actually kill kids renders that individual responsibility argument moot. Furthermore, when it is minors involved who frankly are not of age or mind to consent or make their own medical choices, that parent is basically condemning their child. We put parents who murder or neglect their kids away. How is letting your child succumb to a disease they could have been immune to with 1 shot any better? Furthermore, if you knew that there was a chance your kid could die from infection and you didn't get the shots, that's pretty irresponsible.

    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.
    Except that the system doesn't actually foot the bill to that person or insurance in the end. In the end the costs are allocated to everyone else. Insurance is not simply going to just eat the additional costs. They're going to pass it on to everyone else. Meaning the responsible adult who immunized his kids is paying for the irresponsibility of others.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Everywhere and Nowhere
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 03:28 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,692

    Re: Government policy on vaccines

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Not everyone has the choice of being vaccinated. Some people have legitimate medical conditions or allergies that prevents them from getting vaccinated, so they rely on herd immunity. Yes, this is a relatively small percentage of people...but probably not as small as you might think. It's certainly a large enough number to take into account when deciding government policy.
    That's true. So you're suggesting that if there are those taking advantage of the herd immunity, it should be reserved for those who genuinely need to?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Furthermore, it's usually kids who need to be vaccinated. There might be some marginal importance in allowing adults to behave like idiots with their own lives (although in this case I'd question it even for adults), but they have less freedom to subject their kids to their idiocy.
    I don't think it's that cut and dry. Parents refuse medical procedures that might be beneficial to their kids all the time. Unless there is impending death if they do not have a procedure done, I would not call it en par with outright endangerment. It's important that guardians have the right to refuse even if we don't agree with it.

    It's reasonable to let parents decide when their kids get vaccinated within a deadline, such as before school starts, and only because not doing so puts other children at school at risk. If they want to home school their kids, then fine. I didn't get my son vaccinated as a newborne because something about it seemed not right to me. I should have the right to refuse that kind of thing, and I did. I know that sounds vague but I had to go with my instincts. I waited until he was two and a half to get the major ones done. Also, I think some vaccines are just unnecessary, like chicken pox or the flu shot. My kid has never gotten those and never will as long as I am his guardian.

    As long as the government is sticking to tried and true vaccines for serious diseases, then I support vaccination programs, but no one should be forced because that is unethical. The hysteria we're seeing around the flu shot and the corporate money grabs are not acceptable to me and no part of it will budge me to seek those vaccines.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child
    Normally, I'd agree with this. However, the costs from sickness on that kind of level, not to mention that some of these diseases can actually kill kids renders that individual responsibility argument moot. Furthermore, when it is minors involved who frankly are not of age or mind to consent or make their own medical choices, that parent is basically condemning their child. We put parents who murder or neglect their kids away. How is letting your child succumb to a disease they could have been immune to with 1 shot any better? Furthermore, if you knew that there was a chance your kid could die from infection and you didn't get the shots, that's pretty irresponsible.
    Economically, I totally agree with you. In terms of realistic scenarios, we don't really deal with epidemic disease in America right now because most of it has been eliminated through herd immunity. I think that's why some parents have the luxury of not getting their kids vaccinated. If an epidemic were to start up again, many of those parents would probably think twice because there would be a real life or death necessity to do it. That necessity does not currently exist.

    As callous as this may seem, if some people die from not being vaccinated, so what? They made their choice, for themselves and their families. I don't support giving nanny government more powers to force people to undergo medical procedures, especially when everyone has fairly equal access to information on the risks now. No one can claim they "didn't know" if something happens. We live in a time that enables people's personal responsibility more than ever before. You can type "vaccine" into google and find everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child
    Except that the system doesn't actually foot the bill to that person or insurance in the end. In the end the costs are allocated to everyone else. Insurance is not simply going to just eat the additional costs. They're going to pass it on to everyone else. Meaning the responsible adult who immunized his kids is paying for the irresponsibility of others.
    It depends on what disease we're talking about. Small pox has been basically eliminated from the active population. Unless the government gets into bio warfare, we'll never see it again so vaccination is not necessary. I saw no reason to get my son vaccinated for that. The MMR vaccine I also skipped because it is relatively new and most of those childhood diseases are manageable or practically rites of passage. Hepatitis will wait until he's an adolescent.

    I've read the research and I know what the medical community says about vaccines, but I do not personally believe that babies should be loaded up with all those chemicals at once. If it can be spaced out or delayed as much as possible, I think it would be better. It's my choice as a parent and if you don't like it, too bad. Those are my rights.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •