• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Government policy on vaccines

Should the government require vaccines?


  • Total voters
    32
One has to wonder what humanity did all those thousands of years before current medical technology came along......

They had way stronger immune systems and didn't rely on pharmaceuticals. Then the church came along and banned wild medicine as witchcraft, at least that's what happened in Europe.
 
One has to wonder what humanity did all those thousands of years before current medical technology came along......

Die by the age of 28 and have average life spans of less than 40 years.
 
Die by the age of 28 and have average life spans of less than 40 years.

In addition to having ridiculously high child mortality rates, so much so that women had to have 10-12 children to have any hope of raising a few to adulthood.

Anyone who thinks the "good old days" were better is an idiot.
 
Vaccines for all children. By not being vaccinated you place others at risk. If you refuse to be vaccinated, you need to be segregated from those who are.
 
What do you think government policy should be on immunizations for children/adolescents?

I'm happy with the way it is; where core vaccinations are mandatory, vaccinations for more uncommon diseases are standard but can be opted out of, and you have to seek the flue shot.

I know you're talking about children, but I was ordered to take the flue shot for the first time in my life while at Fort Leonard Wood, and I caught the flue. I've never had the flue or the flue shot before, and if I have my way I won't ever again. Good luck to me getting my way in the military, though :2razz:
 
I'm happy with the way it is; where core vaccinations are mandatory, vaccinations for more uncommon diseases are standard but can be opted out of, and you have to seek the flue shot.

I know you're talking about children, but I was ordered to take the flue shot for the first time in my life while at Fort Leonard Wood, and I caught the flue. I've never had the flue or the flue shot before, and if I have my way I won't ever again. Good luck to me getting my way in the military, though :2razz:

Uh... You do realise how a vaccination works, right?
 
What do you think government policy should be on immunizations for children/adolescents?

It should be only up to the parent if a child receives a vaccine, nor should parents be extorted by government to vaccinate their children as a means of enrolling their child in mandatory education. The government should not force civilians to take vaccine injections,especially when the government made a law saying you can't sue drug makers for serious side effects of their vaccines,some vaccines do carry side effects and the fact the government has conducted STD experimented on civilians.

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.


http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm
 
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.
 
Great thread.

It recieves my:

546seal-of-approval.jpg


Keep rocking DP.

Vaccinations for all.
 
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).

How is a un-vaccinated child a danger to those who are vaccinated?
 
How is a un-vaccinated child a danger to those who are vaccinated?

Talking about having a bunch of un-vaccinated children at school, and how easily a breakout could occur if they're interacting regularly. Again, it depends what they're being vaccinated against.
 
Talking about having a bunch of un-vaccinated children at school, and how easily a breakout could occur if they're interacting regularly. Again, it depends what they're being vaccinated against.

Concerning unvaccinated kids at school - that's *why* I vaccinate my kids - because others don't. Some can't, even, because of conflicting health issues - therfor, it heightens their chances of becoming ill and heightens my reason to vaccinate.

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.
 
How is a un-vaccinated child a danger to those who are vaccinated?

They aren't; they're a danger to other people who are unvaccinated...including some who CAN'T be vaccinated due to medical concerns, and are thus at the mercy of whatever diseases other people are carrying. Herd immunity is a very powerful effect, and the tipping point is often very narrowly defined. For example, some unvaccinated people might have virtually no immunity to a certain disease if 87% of the public was vaccinated, but almost total immunity to the same disease if 88% of the public was vaccinated. The benefits of herd immunity are more than enough reason for government to be involved IMO.
 
I did not get my children vaccines until school. Well they had a few but I believe they were too close together and dont need them all at once. I know this might sound odd but I didnt have that many shots growing up and my immune system is great. My kids also have never been really sick besides an occasional cough or sneeze and I go get them flu shots. However almost all my kids are in school so they do have what is required to attend school. Also I had an awful experience with my oldest daughter when she received shots when she was 6 mths old. My insurance denied us changing doctors so we stopped going.

Your children are benefiting from the suffering of other kids. Consider this, in a population of 100, if 95 of the population is vaccinated, the chance of disease spread from 1 individual is low because virtually all of potential hosts are immune. Therefore, those 5 individuals can essentially free ride off of the other 95. The problem is when the percent of non-vaccinated start to increase to the level where the number of potential hosts that aren't immune reaches a certain point. At that point, we get mass breakouts like we've seen last year of measles, mumps and whopping cough. As long as there are the vast majority of immunized people, it's fine for a few people not to get vaccinated.
 
Your children are benefiting from the suffering of other kids. Consider this, in a population of 100, if 95 of the population is vaccinated, the chance of disease spread from 1 individual is low because virtually all of potential hosts are immune. Therefore, those 5 individuals can essentially free ride off of the other 95. The problem is when the percent of non-vaccinated start to increase to the level where the number of potential hosts that aren't immune reaches a certain point. At that point, we get mass breakouts like we've seen last year of measles, mumps and whopping cough. As long as there are the vast majority of immunized people, it's fine for a few people not to get vaccinated.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?

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.

obvious Child said:
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.

obvious Child said:
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom