• 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!

Should Governments Do More to Counter the Anti-Vaccine Movement

Should Governments Do More to Counter the Anti-Vaccine Movement?

  • Total voters
    44
PirateMk1 said:
Your family has no greater rights than mine. My family owes your family NOTHING. Your family owes mine NOTHING. Not vaccinating a child is not child endangerment. Parents have the final say on whether their children should be vaccinated and if so how. As should be. I sure hell didnt brook other people interfering in the rearing of my children whether they are "authorities" or not. I dont begrudge other parents that right to rear their children as they see fit, either.
Click to expand...

I'm good with that. But just like a kid with active measles can be kept out of a school, so can the govt decide to keep other potential risks out of the school...or any other areas that make create public safety risks.

We dont "owe" your kid an education at the risk of our kids or the ones that have suppressed immune systems or the ones that may carry it home to their elderly or infant family members.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Should Governments Do More to Counter the Anti-Vaccine Movement? :think:

A person's right to the complete control over their own body should be sacrosanct. :no:

The only time someone should be "required" to be vaccinated is if they sign a contract of service knowing (as with joining the military) that they give up this right as a term of such service.
Click to expand...

I agree no one should be 'forced' to submit to vaccines against their will.

But that choice should not enable them to endanger others...so they may face restrictions on their movements in public, esp. tax-payer supported venues.
 
Lursa said:
I agree no one should be 'forced' to submit to vaccines against their will.

But that choice should not enable them to endanger others...so they may face restrictions on their movements in public, esp. tax-payer supported venues.
Click to expand...

Of course, choices have consequences. As I posted earlier, they can be refused access to public schools still having the choice to home-school or private school.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Of course, choices have consequences. As I posted earlier, they can be refused access to public schools still having the choice to home-school or private school.
Click to expand...

The public and school systems should not be endangered by the choices of the uninformed typhoid Mary mindset.
 
Carjosse said:
In light of events like a measles outbreak in Washington state or the EU. Do you think that governments need to start doing more to counter the anti-vaccination movement and their pseudoscience lies? If so, what measures do you think they should take: legislation, more fact-based myth-debunking awareness campaigns, or fear and shock based campaigns like anti-smoking ads, more then one? If not, why not?

I think they need all three, use legislation to eliminate exemptions (should be all but medical) though that may be difficult so in the mean time launch campaigns from both angles, fact-based to debunk myths, and fear to provide a much stronger emotional push to vaccinate. This opinion piece from the CBC highlights why a fear campaign to encourage vaccination would work. Have pamphlets, commercials, whatever showing children suffering or dead from these diseases, show them what happens when you do not vaccinate.
Click to expand...

If you child is not vaccinated they do not attend public schools and if your child contrasts something that could have been avoided through taking a vaccine and the child is damaged or dies you will be charged appropriately. Life has choices and consequences for those choices.
Putting out the truth can do wonders but at the same time this is about children we are discussing and as such people need to be held accountable.
 
Verax said:
That is not true and a good example of why parents do not know better than medical professionals. It is best to give children all of their vaccines at once before they have a chance to get sick while unprotected.
Click to expand...

We used a vaccine specialist, several actually in developing our children programs. I trust them before you. They ran tests before and after and made sure things were going as they predicted. Well worth the money we spent. Vaccine specialists also design the vaccine regimens your pets and cattle use. Dead cattle dont bring home the bacon.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Fully informed should be between them and their doctor based on peer reviewed studies and evidence published in respected medical journals, not **** they read on the internet.
Click to expand...

I dont necessarily disagree. But parents to have the right to ask questions, and it is up to the doctor to educate them. If the doctor cant or wont, then that doctor is not worth seeing. ALL the professionals I hire I expect to educate me on the topics I hire them to oversee. Doctors, Engineers, Architects, Instructors what have you. I do the same for my logistics clients.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Your family has no greater rights than mine. My family owes your family NOTHING. Your family owes mine NOTHING. Not vaccinating a child is not child endangerment. Parents have the final say on whether their children should be vaccinated and if so how. As should be. I sure hell didnt brook other people interfering in the rearing of my children whether they are "authorities" or not. I dont begrudge other parents that right to rear their children as they see fit, either.
Click to expand...

But your decision not to vaccinate puts not only your child at risk but those of others. If your child contracts a preventable disease and possibly passes that on to others you are negligent. Not vaccinating is child endangerment, you are choosing to endanger the life of your child by leaving them vulnerable to an entirely preventable disease.
 
Helix said:
yes. i support legislation. if you want to be an anti-vax woo woo, it should be inconvenient.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It should be goddamned inconvenient.

Outside of those who can prove that they would test positive for some kind of adverse reaction (in other words, verified by doctors) it should be next to illegal to refuse a vaccine for well known serious contagious diseases which have been eradicated or almost eradicated.

If one wants to live entirely outside of society and civilization, not connecting with the general public in any way, in a remote area and not enter cities and towns solely due to some objection to these vaccines, great...go live a feral existence. I don't have ANY sympathy for anti-vaxxers whatsoever, behold the giant vessel of ****s into which I have deposited ZERO of mine.
 
PirateMk1 said:
First lets get something straight. Nobody has ANY obligations to you or yours. None. The only reason one would subject their children to vaccination would be to attempt to mitigate or eliminate the effects of such diseases to the children in question. The herd immunity is simply side benefit. Parents before they vaccinate their children, if they vaccinate their children, should be FULLY informed, just like any other major medically procedure. Pros and cons risks and rewards. This decision is theirs and theirs alone. Period. It is not my or your place to interfere. If you think you do and decide to push the issue, then you'll have a fight on your hands, deservedly so I might add. Vaccinations are NOT to be undertaken lightly. They need to be carefully considered. Vaccines are not simple. There are consequences that can be substantial with their usage or the lack thereof.
Click to expand...

You're in Whitefish? Asking for a friend.
 
Rexedgar said:
Who here is old enough to remember lining up for a sugar cube in a Dixie cup laced with the polio vaccine of Sabin or Salk?
Click to expand...

I am almost 100% certain it was the very first vaccine I received. At my tender age I did not realize that the next few would be injections LOL.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Except when your kid infects another kid that is temporarily immune suppressed due to a variety of medical reasons, like cancer for example, then you should be held liable in civil court. If people had to face losing all their assets should their unvaccinated kid infect some kid undergoing chemo, I suspect they would be far more likely to listen to their doctor than to base their medical decisions on stupid **** they read on the internet.

I will take it a step further, say you don't want your daughter to have the gardasil vaccine against HPV. If she get's cervical cancer at any point in her life, her medical insurer should be able to come back and sue you to recoup their costs in paying for her cancer treatments for what would have been completely preventable with the vaccine.
Click to expand...

Then I presume you have absolutely no problem with that point of view directed at those who come across our border unlawfully, a majority of which are not fully vaccinated.

As far as lawsuit goes thats a losing one in court. I will tell you why, because if your child immune system is so suppressed that it cannot handle a disease which they are presumably inoculated against then your child would mostly like fall to any that they are not inoculated as well against. You would be forced to prove that disease which killed your kid was in fact transmitted by the uninoculated kid exclusively. Good luck with that.

As far as the HPV vaccine. My daughters can take it whenever they like as soon as they are adults. Thats up to them. Let the insurance company come, I keep good attorneys on retainer. People sue for lots of stupid reasons. Cervical cancer nor any other cancer is completely preventable.

Your family owes mine nothing. Mine owes yours nothing. The world owes us nothing. Diseases are inherently part of life and must be dealt with. How one deals with it is up to the individual and their families.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Agreed. It should be goddamned inconvenient.

Outside of those who can prove that they would test positive for some kind of adverse reaction (in other words, verified by doctors) it should be next to illegal to refuse a vaccine for well known serious contagious diseases which have been eradicated or almost eradicated.

If one wants to live entirely outside of society and civilization, not connecting with the general public in any way, in a remote area and not enter cities and towns solely due to some objection to these vaccines, great...go live a feral existence. I don't have ANY sympathy for anti-vaxxers whatsoever, behold the giant vessel of ****s into which I have deposited ZERO of mine.
Click to expand...

Some people have an egg allergy. That's a legitimate excuse. Reading Natural News too much is not.
 
Helix said:
Some people have an egg allergy. That's a legitimate excuse. Reading Natural News too much is not.
Click to expand...

That one is absurdly easy to point out and any doctor will go along with it.
They also are going to try alternatives seeing as how egg allergies, while still rare, aren't THAT RARE.
Doctors know about egg allergies.
 
Lursa said:
No, parents should not. They should have the right to consult Drs and have them determine the risk to their child. And if there is no risk found, the kids should be vaccinated OR not allowed to attend public schools (at minimum).

As if parents 'know better' on this medical issue :roll: How do you think the current epidemics started?

As for 'alternative' formulas...dont parents have access to those now?
Click to expand...

Thats your opinion. One I dont hold to. They have the right to refuse to inoculate if they think that is best for their child and situation.

I have had do deal with the government on this very issue. I am fortunate to have had the resources to marshal against government, and to know very good attorneys who help me correct the governments misguided opinion on the matter.

As far as parents knowing better its not a matter of that, its matter of making an informed decision that is right for them as they see it. That decision may not necessarily be the one YOU make. I never ever took kindly to being told how to raise my children. I expect many parents are similar to me in that regard, especially after you are invested into more than one child.

I had hired specialist companies and physicians in my childrens case. Full testing, beginning, during and the occasional booster. One of the reasons I tangled with the government with regard to my children. The other was their education.
Thats another story, for another day.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Thats your opinion. One I dont hold to. They have the right to refuse to inoculate if they think that is best for their child and situation.

I have had do deal with the government on this very issue. I am fortunate to have had the resources to marshal against government, and to know very good attorneys who help me correct the governments misguided opinion on the matter.

As far as parents knowing better its not a matter of that, its matter of making an informed decision that is right for them as they see it. That decision may not necessarily be the one YOU make. I never ever took kindly to being told how to raise my children. I expect many parents are similar to me in that regard, especially after you are invested into more than one child.

I had hired specialist companies and physicians in my childrens case. Full testing, beginning, during and the occasional booster. One of the reasons I tangled with the government with regard to my children. The other was their education.
Thats another story, for another day.
Click to expand...

The fact that you believe most parents make 'an informed decision' is where we part company. (seems implied at least)

I also wrote "should." As I wrote elsewhere, I dont believe they should be forced to vaccinate their kids.
 
Lursa said:
I'm good with that. But just like a kid with active measles can be kept out of a school, so can the govt decide to keep other potential risks out of the school...or any other areas that make create public safety risks.

We dont "owe" your kid an education at the risk of our kids or the ones that have suppressed immune systems or the ones that may carry it home to their elderly or infant family members.
Click to expand...

Your right public education has strings attached as there should be. My SO and I never educated our children in the traditional manner except for making them all go to their senior year of high school, and that wasn't for education that was just for the experience of high school so they could relate easier to people, they were taking university level courses before going at the time.
 
Carjosse said:
But your decision not to vaccinate puts not only your child at risk but those of others. If your child contracts a preventable disease and possibly passes that on to others you are negligent. Not vaccinating is child endangerment, you are choosing to endanger the life of your child by leaving them vulnerable to an entirely preventable disease.
Click to expand...


I dont agree. Its not child endangerment or endangerment of others. Diseases exist outside just my child and your child they are for all intents and purposes, everywhere, in literally every breath you take. All inoculation does is help to prevent a few from amongst however many exist from possibly being spread, they are not infallible.
 
Lursa said:
The fact that you believe most parents make 'an informed decision' is where we part company. (seems implied at least)

I also wrote "should." As I wrote elsewhere, I dont believe they should be forced to vaccinate their kids.
Click to expand...

Thats part of the risk in living in a free society. Not everybody thinks like you or me and so makes what they think is great decision that you or I would go "Are you daft!?!".
 
If a parent refuses to vaccinate a child, and that child dies through a disease, then the parent should be charged with manslaughter because they could have prevented the death and didn't. If the child suffers permanent injury through contracting a disease, and they were not immunised, the parent should be charged with something akin to serious assault (I don't know the legal definition or idea, but I am sure people get what I mean).
 
In theory I support vaccination. In practice, it has some problems.

It has not been tested much, or any at all, on the age kids it is given to; and there can be serious complications.

Some ingredients may be dangerous.

The US schedule of vaccinations is a much longer list than most other countries. I'm not sure pumping that much vaccine into young infants is a good idea. Maybe spread it out over a much longer period. But, of course the thinking is that you must get them done all at once (as much as possible) because many parents won't come in for follow up visits.

One vaccination I personally won't be getting is the shingles vaccine. It's un-necessary and not very effective. Flu shots are also of debatable worth.
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm not convinced there's anything more they can do that is actually effective and isn't going to hurt kids more than it helps them.
Click to expand...

I had measles as a kid; I nearly died, and although I recovered, the disease had permanently affected my eyesight. Parents who do not vaccinate their children are playing Russian Roulette with their lives; they should not be allowed to play Russian Roulette the the lives of other peoples' children.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You shut this stupidity down by making parents financially liable for their stupidity in not vaccinating their kids. If I injure someone through my own negligence, their medical insurer can come back and sue me to recoup their expenses in paying for that treatment. Anti-vax idiots should be subject to the same civil liabilities.

Say you forgo a vaccination for a vaccine preventable disease, fine, that is your choice, but if your kid then infects a kid that is immune suppressed and dependent on others being vaccinated, they should be able to come back and sue you.

Say you forgo gardasil, the vaccine against HPV, literally a vaccine against cancer, fine that is your choice, but if your kid gets cervical cancer one day, BCBS or whoever their insurer is should be able to come back and sue you to recoup the costs of cancer treatment as it is a cost you are fully negligent for by your refusal to vaccinate.

These antivax idiots would not even be able to get a homeowners policy if we made their stupid decisions subject to the same civil liabilities that other stupid decisions are.
Click to expand...


If you could prove the cancer was caused by the 6 of the 100 known strains of HPV, you may have a small point. Giving a vaccine that is only effective for 5 years to a young girl or boy when they are not even sexually active is nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom