Vaccination Choic or Compulsary??

[Babblings]

I'm an not trying to great a debate!

Just wish to see ppl express their thoughts in a private poll.

So please keep this thread respectful, and don't attack ppls own decisions or opinions. Everybody has a right to their own opinion.

(Redone as copm was playin up & didn't get to add poll)

[nothanksbye]

a choice.
I am pro vaccinations but I dont agree with taking choices away from us.
Thats a scary place to live. If we make vaccinations compulsory we take away the rights of people.

[~Temet Nosce~]

Once agian, there has already been a thread on this. I will try and find it for you.

[Babblings]

I am pro vaccination & completely agree that choice is something everyone is entitled too!

I wouldn't be honest if i didn't say though that prior to my DS receiving his 8 weeks vaccinations that i wasn't worried about the chance of him getting a serious health condition due to NON Vaccination. Just one of the many worries i had as a new parent.

And i am aware of the chances of it actually happening, it was just something i thought about in those first few weeks.

[Babblings]

Lol,

Cheers Amethyst......currently fighting with comp :laughing:

[pinkishbunny]

Compulsary for sure!

[~Temet Nosce~]

Blah sorry.. I'm shaped to dial up speed so it's taking to long to search :laughing:

[nothanksbye]

I would be so scared of it being a law or compulsory.

What if they started doing that with all our choices.

In a perfect world there would be a perfect way but untill then we just have to let people choose.

[Babblings]

The only thread i could find was in relation to W.C.

I was thinking more broader views on the whole topic, taking into account the full vaccination schedule. I understand not everyone can take the full course of vaccinations due to many reasons.

I hope ppl still answer the poll!!!

[prideNJoy]

The only thread i could find was in relation to W.C.

I was thinking more broader views on the whole topic, taking into account the full vaccination schedule. I understand not everyone can take the full course of vaccinations due to many reasons.

I hope ppl still answer the poll!!!

Here you go. :)
http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=248653&highlight=vaccination+choice

[Bunnyhugs]

I think it should definitely be a choice. How scary would this world be if we didn't have a choice about these things?

I vaccinated my son so I don't care whether other people vax theirs or not, mine are covered *shrugs* if the vaccines are so great, then my child should be covered and doesn't matter if he comes into contact with kids who aren't.

[HeidiLee]

Definately compulsory if they are in childcare or school. You cant put your pets into a kennel without vaccinating them so I dont see why children should be any different.

[Pax]

:eek: wow i am surprised at the amount of people that want no choice in what goes into their own bodies!

take that liberty away and they will have us verichipped in no time.

[my_lot]

haha heidiLee. :laughing: You compare dogs to kids!

NO i dont think anyone should be forced. Anyway if it did come to that parents would still be able to get CO forms signed for medical exemption. No one is going to force a sick kid, one that could react ect. into getting a vax. So there will be parents with other reasons lined up with these parents.

If you dont want to do something then there will be a way out of it.

[missie_mack]

Definately compulsory if they are in childcare or school. You cant put your pets into a kennel without vaccinating them so I dont see why children should be any different.

Umm because schooling is encouraged where as boarding kennels are an option... and you do know humans have more rights than pets right :confused:

[BigRedV]

I am shocked at how many people have said that it should be compulsory :eek:

My DD is vaxed and so will all my future children but it shouldn't be forced upon people. How ridiculous!

[Fuchsia!]

I would be so scared of it being a law or compulsory.

What if they started doing that with all our choices.

In a perfect world there would be a perfect way but untill then we just have to let people choose.
:iagree:

I wonder how many people that voted NO would be happy if the government made Breastfeeding compulsory or the other way round, maybe ban elect C/S, perhaps make abortions illegal, or microchip us so we know where everyone else.

Once you start letting the government make our choices its a really slippery nasty slope to go down.

Im really surprised how many people have voted that it should be compulsory.

To those i ask..How would you feel about having choices in other areas of you life/parenting made for you by the government?

[SassyMummy]

Choice.

I vaccinate but if others decide it's not for them or their children, I believe they deserve the right to say NO to immunisations.

[Boobycino]

I'm a vaxxer, but I do ask question, research and make choices regarding when and what vaxinations Jasper gets.

I generally dislike the idea of something artificial that I understand going into his body, so I think I'd be an anti-vaxxer if they took away my right to have input into what and when Jasper has vaxinations.

[Milktini]

Choice :)
I am pro vaccination, but wouldn't want to reserve the right to take away another parents choice, for which ever reason the choose to vax or not.

[Boobycino]

:iagree:

I wonder how many people that voted NO would be happy if the government made Breastfeeding compulsory or the other way round, maybe ban elect C/S, perhaps make abortions illegal, or microchip us so we know where everyone else.

Once you start letting the government make our choices its a really slippery nasty slope to go down.

Im really surprised how many people have voted that it should be compulsory.

To those i ask..How would you feel about having choices in other areas of you life/parenting made for you by the government?

:iagree:

Spend 10 minutes on bubhub and you'll see whats right for my DS is totally wrong for your DD and we're all passionate and we all right.

Take away our choices and we'll revolt and bring down the government!!!

[MamaLlama]

Compulsory for sure. There would always be exemptions if there was a good medical reason you couldn't have them (like allergy to eggs or something used to culture the vaccine).

It would make our community much much safer if we had vaccination rates up there around 97% with the only people not vaccinated being those who actually couldn't be.

[MamaLlama]

I think it should definitely be a choice. How scary would this world be if we didn't have a choice about these things?

I vaccinated my son so I don't care whether other people vax theirs or not, mine are covered *shrugs* if the vaccines are so great, then my child should be covered and doesn't matter if he comes into contact with kids who aren't.

Except what about when your kids are too young to be vaccinated? Or if they have illnesses that mean they can't be? What about the few people for whom vaccines won't sero-convert so are never effective? Or the elderly whose immunity has declined but they are too frail to vaccinate again? What about cancer patients and other ill people who can't be vaccinated or get boosters?

Those people all rely on a very high vaccination rate to give herd immunity. Letting people just opt out because they're scared but have no reason they can't vaccinate is dangerous for those people. I have 3 members of my family who can't be vaccinated (1 is elderly, 1 is allergic to the culturing agent, 1 is a rare instance of the vaccine never converting though she's had them several times). If I lost one of them because someone didn't vaccinate but could have I'd be bloody angry. I think we ought to be able to sue for it to be honest, I mean it is recklessly endangering other people's lives. And I actually know someone who is deaf and blind because of a VPD they got when they were too young to vaccinate. That poor baby was as innocent as your kids.

[my_lot]

So what your saying, mamaluma, is that if they have an allergy to eggs or something used in the vax then then thats ok not to vax?


What about the babies that react to their very first vaxxes at 8 weeks?

How do we know if the child is going to react? What if there is a family history of egg allegy but the baby hasnt reacted as they have never eaten egg product because they are under the age to eat?

What about the siblings of that child? Are they excluded or does the parent have to take a risk there aswell?

[Funkychicken]

A little off topic, but if a person whose body 'rejects" vaccines (as in, their bodies will not take up the vaccine) can they contract the disease they are trying to immunise against?
Does anyone personally know of someone who has contracted a particular disease after their body rejected the vaccine?

[MamaLlama]

So what your saying, mamaluma, is that if they have an allergy to eggs or something used in the vax then then thats ok not to vax?


What about the babies that react to their very first vaxxes at 8 weeks?

How do we know if the child is going to react? What if there is a family history of egg allegy but the baby hasnt reacted as they have never eaten egg product because they are under the age to eat?

What about the siblings of that child? Are they excluded or does the parent have to take a risk there aswell?

These are medical judgments to be made on a case-by-case basis by experts. Not by your average GP who hasn't had the background info or training to assess it. And definitely not by laypeople like parents. You can skin test a lot of those things to check if they'll react. You can make judgments about the risks and if it is more than minimal grant the exemption (though obviously the parents may opt to take the risk if its still small). I just don't believe that parents should be able to make choices like that based on fear not science. If there was a medical certificate required indicating vaccine was contraindicated far fewer people would not be vaccinated yet there's no reason to think more people who should not be vaccinated would be. At the moment its all up to the parents who understandably don't have the scientific knowledge to make risk assessments AND base most of their response on fear. Much better t o force a genuine risk assessment. You can still be conservative (eg multiple risk factors, can't determine the kid would not have a reaction for some reason therefore exempt). There would STILL be far fewer unvaccinated kids out there. BTW I think adults should also have compulsory boosters on the same system. Its easy to enforce really, if you had employers' OHS insurance go sky high if they had more than some % of unvaccinated or un-boostered employees...trust me the vaccination rate would suddenly jump.

Re getting the disease- not possible. People misunderstand what it means even when there is a "live" vaccine. You cannot get the disease from it. And if the vaccine doesn't "take" (ie sero-convert) it just has no effect. My mother cannot seroconvert varicella vaccine, she's had it multiple times and yet 3 months later shows low titer (measurement of immunity). She's never had chickenpox either despite exposure. There is no reason to think the vaccine would give her chickenpox, but she could certainly get it from transmissible sources like anyone else.

[my_lot]

What about the parents that base their decision on experience?

Family History gives experience. Im not talking about granny reacting to egg im talking about a first time mother holding a convulsing 8week old after a vaccination and then making a decision NOT to vaccinate again. That is making a decision based on history and experience!

[MamaLlama]

That experience doesn't give you technical knowledge though. You can give that piece of evidence to an expert and they can actually work something meaningful out of it. For you to go with gut is unscientific claptrap (in the nicest possible way but it is)...for an expert to look at that piece of evidence and work out the chances/tests that would be required is valid.

So no, I don't think that just because x happened a parent should be able to exempt from vaccines UNLESS a Dr agrees with the risk. They may well agree, but their knoweldge is based on facts, not gut.

Otherwise why not let someone who believes that vaccines cause your urine to go blue just because their urine went blue when they had their last vaccine? Totally unscientific and plainly wrong but sincerely believed based on "experience". And some illnesses do actually turn your urine blue btw.

[PunkyDiva]

A little off topic, but if a person whose body 'rejects" vaccines (as in, their bodies will not take up the vaccine) can they contract the disease they are trying to immunise against?
Does anyone personally know of someone who has contracted a particular disease after their body rejected the vaccine?

My DH hasn't rejected a vaccine but he has had chicken pox three times now with no residue immunity and worsening symptoms each time.

[BigRedV]

I also think that if you make it compulsory, less people will actually get their children immunised.

[my_lot]

That experience is the parents own. Its not a trumped up story from the lady up the road who someone hears on the grapevine and thinks is true.

and dont you get it that if a BABY reacts like that after a vaccine then they will get an exclusion from vaccination?

Its still up to the parents if they wish to vax but it will never be forced and never forced apon a sibling of that child either. No DR would ever be stupid enough to not take that family history into account.

[MamaLlama]

No DR would ever be stupid enough to not take that family history into account.

EXACTLY my point. So no problem requiring vax with medical exemptions. But the judgments Drs make about medical history is inherently different to the parents.

Look, I've got this lovely couple down the road. They're the nicest people. But t hey are an archietect and an office manager respectively, not a whit of scientific training between them. If they had a child who reacted to vaccine x, and the Dr told them the reason (and presumably that the skintest should have been done prior and wasn't) but that y vaccine didn't have that so therre was NO scientific reason to suspect a reaction, no correlation even AND they'd get a skin test prior to confirm but the parents still stuck to their fear-induced family-history driven refusal? I find that based on ignorance and fear, understandable but unwarranted.

If on the other hand the Dr judged there was a risk of reaction to the next vaccine of course he'd give the exemption. But he's the one who understands the seroconversion and immunoresponse. The parents just don't.

Knowing a few facts is not what gives you knowledge in this area. You can give those facts to others with the right training and actually get some worthwhile judgment out of it.

[my_lot]

There are also hospitals full of specialists that dont know what causes the reaction to vaxxes.

[traseal]

CHOICE!!!!!
If the government can control what is injected into our bodies what next?? :eek:

[Fuchsia!]

Making it complusory will never happen IMO. Otherwise they will have to open a massive fund for vaccine injured children

[La Que Sabe]

CHOICE!!!!!
If the government can control what is injected into our bodies what next?? :eek:


Making it complusory will never happen IMO. Otherwise they will have to open a massive fund for vaccine injured children


they'll control our birthing choices, or education choices.
it's already happening now. ifthey can take away those choices, why should it be any different for vaccinations?
they're just trying to take away our rights, our choices, our differences.
tjhey want everyone to be the same.

ETA: i say it should be choice, not compulsary :)

[MamaLlama]

tjhey want everyone to be the same.



Not they, we...we want our newborns to be safe, and our grandparents, immuno-compromised loved ones etc etc. If being the same = being safe then yes, we should all be safe.

[La Que Sabe]

yes i can see what you are saying, but just becuase i chose not to vacc my kids or not birth in hospital or go to a mainstream school doesn't mean i've made the 'unsafe' choice...kwim?

[MamaLlama]

yes i can see what you are saying, but just becuase i chose not to vacc my kids or not birth in hospital or go to a mainstream school doesn't mean i've made the 'unsafe' choice...kwim?

Whether or not it is unsafe for your child is another debate altogether. I am not debating that as there's no point.

But I think I need to make the point that it is NOT just your child...yes at some point I can say if your child dies that's on your head not mine (sad though that would make me). But I think I need to make the point that the decision not to vaccinate where there is no medical reason (which is for Drs not parents to determine) endangers others. It endangers loved ones who are extra vulnerable - babies, old people, sick people, and so on. People who can't take the precaution of vaccinating themselves but who rely on herd immunity.

That is my point. Thus why I think it should be compulsory with medical exemptions. That would get the vaccination rate high enough for herd immunity.

There will always be some who cannot be vaccinated. Those people should want mass vaccination even more than people who vaccinate because it is their lives at stake.

[traseal]

Whether or not it is unsafe for your child is another debate altogether. I am not debating that as there's no point.

But I think I need to make the point that it is NOT just your child...yes at some point I can say if your child dies that's on your head not mine (sad though that would make me). But I think I need to make the point that the decision not to vaccinate where there is no medical reason (which is for Drs not parents to determine) endangers others. It endangers loved ones who are extra vulnerable - babies, old people, sick people, and so on. People who can't take the precaution of vaccinating themselves but who rely on herd immunity.

That is my point. Thus why I think it should be compulsory with medical exemptions. That would get the vaccination rate high enough for herd immunity.

There will always be some who cannot be vaccinated. Those people should want mass vaccination even more than people who vaccinate because it is their lives at stake.


Are you honestly completely happy for the government/doctors to inject what they see fit into us and our children?
Do you honestly think if it was made compulsory more people would vax?

[La Que Sabe]

Are you honestly completely happy for the government/doctors to inject what they see fit into us and our children?
Do you honestly think if it was made compulsory more people would vax?


came in here to post exactly that.
thankyou :thumbsup:

[MamaLlama]

Are you honestly completely happy for the government/doctors to inject what they see fit into us and our children?
Do you honestly think if it was made compulsory more people would vax?

1. Yes. It's the government of Australia not the democratic republic of Sylvania. I understand enough about the process of TGA approval to know that it is responsible and I don't t hink the government is out t o get us. Nor are doctors.

2. Yes. Obviously. Because those who genuinely can't vaccinate still wouldn't but those with no medical reason would have to vaccinate. So yes, the rate would go up. Quite a lot for some vaccines.

ETA - oops, should have added that if you don't think the rate will go up then why would you mind if its compulsory? If no extra people would be vaccinating? So surely you also think more people would vaccinate.

ETA further - these "government control" arguments are the same as the ones used against the instroduction of medicare you know. And they're being used today in the US against a similar public health system despite evidence that Australia, the UK and European countries did not turn into medical dictatorships under medicare. Sorry to be off topic but its just soooo striking to me that its the same argument. Yet I do not know an Australian who would advocate the end of medicare.

[traseal]

ETA - oops, should have added that if you don't think the rate will go up then why would you mind if its compulsory? If no extra people would be vaccinating? So surely you also think more people would vaccinate.

Because its taking away part of our FREEDOM...like i said before if they take this, what next? They dont have a good reason to take away homebirth but they are trying, its not that its unsafe then what is it for?
Im assuming if i didnt vax and it was made compulsory it would effect us with schooling and im sure many other things.
Yes the doctors and government arent "out to get us" but there is a thing called human era...and i have read many of them on here alone of wrong shots etc. My DS is only 8 months old and i cant trust a doctor to diagnose him correctly, i dont trust anyone completely to watch my son so there is no way in hell im going to let anyone inject him with anything because they think its safe. (unless its life death situation and it outweighs risk etc)

[Lillynix]

Choice.

I choose not to vaccinate because I am concerned for my childrens health, just like those who vaccinate because they are concerned about their childrens health.

By making vaccination compulsary, you are effectively saying that my concerns don't matter and I should just suck it up, that my concerns are less valid than those who do vaccinate.

Totally and utterly wrong. We live in a democratic society, not a dictatorship, though sadly, it doesn't always feel that way.

[delirium]

I'm a vaxxer but I believe in total choice on the subject.

[MamaLlama]

Because its taking away part of our FREEDOM...like i said before if they take this, what next? They dont have a good reason to take away homebirth but they are trying, its not that its unsafe then what is it for?
Im assuming if i didnt vax and it was made compulsory it would effect us with schooling and im sure many other things.
Yes the doctors and government arent "out to get us" but there is a thing called human era...and i have read many of them on here alone of wrong shots etc. My DS is only 8 months old and i cant trust a doctor to diagnose him correctly, i dont trust anyone completely to watch my son so there is no way in hell im going to let anyone inject him with anything because they think its safe. (unless its life death situation and it outweighs risk etc)

I see w hat you're saying and I'm as much for freedom as the next person but not just for the sake of freedom ifkwim. Freedom has no purpose if we are endangering people. An extreme example is road rules, drink driving rules etc - no question they impair freedom but we all know there's a good reason. The scientific consensus is that mass vaccination to herd immunity levels is also a good reason kwim?

BTW if it ever was compulsory it would always have to have immunologists determine cases like those mentioned in this thread. I am not suggesting your average Joe Bloggs GP has a clue. In a way that's actually part of my whole argument - if a GP has no clue despite an MBBS then what hope a parent would ever understand enough immunology? You need people like Paul Offit et al to look at it case by case and make conservative risk-averse determinations. I have no doubt many would still get their exemptions, but some wouldn't and it only takes a % or 2 to affect herd immunity.

I don't believe the slippery slope argument. If that were true then making seatbelts compulsory was jsut the start of the tyranny that ends in P plate drivers not being able to have any blood alcohol content at all. Instead I think t he explanation is greater knowledge about what is safe and protective measures.

Sadly for me I don't think it will ever be compulsory because for one thing too many Pauline Hanson supporters would be against it. That ultra-conservative belt of voters really does believe its all a conspiracy and the govt cannot afford to ignore them.

[Pippi Longstocking]

BTW if it ever was compulsory it would always have to have immunologists determine cases like those mentioned in this thread. I am not suggesting your average Joe Bloggs GP has a clue. In a way that's actually part of my whole argument - if a GP has no clue despite an MBBS then what hope a parent would ever understand enough immunology?

My husband is a biomedical scientist (at least, he will be once he graduates :p). He has a very good understanding of immunology and I'm happy to combine his knowledge with my own and refuse vaccinations accordingly.

[traseal]

I see w hat you're saying and I'm as much for freedom as the next person but not just for the sake of freedom ifkwim. Freedom has no purpose if we are endangering people. An extreme example is road rules, drink driving rules etc - no question they impair freedom but we all know there's a good reason. The scientific consensus is that mass vaccination to herd immunity levels is also a good reason kwim?

BTW if it ever was compulsory it would always have to have immunologists determine cases like those mentioned in this thread. I am not suggesting your average Joe Bloggs GP has a clue. In a way that's actually part of my whole argument - if a GP has no clue despite an MBBS then what hope a parent would ever understand enough immunology? You need people like Paul Offit et al to look at it case by case and make conservative risk-averse determinations. I have no doubt many would still get their exemptions, but some wouldn't and it only takes a % or 2 to affect herd immunity.

I don't believe the slippery slope argument. If that were true then making seatbelts compulsory was jsut the start of the tyranny that ends in P plate drivers not being able to have any blood alcohol content at all. Instead I think t he explanation is greater knowledge about what is safe and protective measures.

Sadly for me I don't think it will ever be compulsory because for one thing too many Pauline Hanson supporters would be against it. That ultra-conservative belt of voters really does believe its all a conspiracy and the govt cannot afford to ignore them.


Im happy to agree to disagree.
Right now in australia i dont see a need for Vax to be made compolsory. I think we have a pretty high stat of vax people and i dont know if its declining or not???

[MamaLlama]

Im happy to agree to disagree.
Right now in australia i dont see a need for Vax to be made compolsory. I think we have a pretty high stat of vax people and i dont know if its declining or not???

That's cool. As long as you can take the fact that I will always want to know the vaccination status of people who handle any newborn of mine or visit me when my immunocompromised relatives are staying with me ;)

[Miriam]

For those of you who voted "compulsory", does this mean that you think that religious exemptions should not be included?

This is the current vax schedule that people think should be compulsory:


http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/provider/patients/acir/schedule.jsp

So you think that the Hep B vax at birth should be compulsory too? What about when they add the DTaP vax to the "at birth" schedule, which will not be too far away.

I've also read that they are wanting to add the Gardasil vax to the infant schedule and no doubt they will also add Flu vaxes like swine Flu in the not too distant future aswell. Do you think that all of these should be compulsory too?

[my_lot]

There will always be some who cannot be vaccinated. Those people should want mass vaccination even more than people who vaccinate because it is their lives at stake.

Not everyone only has one child to think of.

I just told you that within ONE family of children there can be a child who has reacted to vaccinations and NO doctor will force siblings to be vaccinated with that family history. They DONT NOW so they wont ever with your fantasy.

But according to your dream, they should ignore the parents FEARS based on their own personal experience, skin test the siblings, ignore any risk if its only small and still vaccinate? Because of course that will be for the good of the child who can not be vaccinated due to reactions.

Is this what your saying, mumalumpa?

[samken]

Its compulsory in the USA, with the only exception (this is all states) being allergies and in some states for religious reasons. They have extremely low levels of outbreaks. I read this in The Guardian and didn't think of posting it on BubHub, mainly because it just causes heat. The reason The Guardian was talking about it was because outbreaks of diseases, where their are immunisations, was increasing in the UK. The argument being more people were not immunising. Right now in Australia they are using the carrot but if outbreaks increase then the stick will probably be introduced.

[Miriam]

That's cool. As long as you can take the fact that I will always want to know the vaccination status of people who handle any newborn of mine or visit me when my immunocompromised relatives are staying with me ;)

Maybe you should really insist on everyone who comes to your house that they should have their titers checked beforehand (including adults). Then you wouldn't have to chance any of the people who have been vaxed not having immunity, just to be on the safe side. It happens alot, especially with Rubella I believe.

[Looshkin]

Compulsory for sure. There would always be exemptions if there was a good medical reason you couldn't have them (like allergy to eggs or something used to culture the vaccine).

It would make our community much much safer if we had vaccination rates up there around 97% with the only people not vaccinated being those who actually couldn't be.

What about those of which religious or moral beliefs would not coincide with vaccinating?

So we would we just force everyone regardless of their beliefs, or exempt those with certain faith?

I do think it's a slippery slope - we only need to look at America to consider why enforced, legislated vaccinations couldvery well be a slippery slope as far as setting precedent for government making choices over the autonomy of our bodies.

In other words, I object to creating laws to protect ourselves, from ourselves.
AKA the rights over what goes into or out of my body.

If you want to live in a country like that, by all means, knock yourself out and move to one.

[MamaLlama]

I'm not clear on what you're saying in there so I will try to say it more clearly.

It should not be a blanket statement. It should be a case-by-case MEDICAL judgment. Not a judgment for parents. Not a judgment without reference to family history. A judgment by immunologists based on all the info they think appropriate (family history, skin tests, age, other allergies, severity, titer and many other factors t hat I would need more specialist knowledge to even think of).

No I don't think a parents scientifically uninformed fear should be the end of the matter. Nor do I think that the average GP should be deciding these hard cases. But I think a suitable expert should, based on ALL the evidence and science available.

For example I have a friend whose daughter is 10 and has leukemia. She's doing ok now and looks like she's going to make the 5 year clear rate (so "cured" if you like)...but she will always be immunocompromised and she'll be on drugs for many years and she is also an organ recipient with loads of drugs suppressing her immunity.

That mum has other kids but even if she didn't... she's fanatical about vaccination. Because her daughter cannot be re-vaccinated, at least not for years and years. If she gets whooping cough or measles or even flu it would kill her. So while she is not vaccinated (or revaccinated) her mum is even more militant about others being vaccinated than I am. Because her daughter relies on others to vaccinate.

Extreme case because she's so susceptible, but still works to illustrate.

Just because 1 sibling is allergic doesn't automatically make the others allergic. They might be. They might not be. I am not qualified to say that the siblings should be vaccinated. But neither are you. Only immunologists are. And no they are not the government :D

Hoep that's clearer. Have to do the freaking washing.

[FionaV]

Compulsory, unless there are true medical reasons for not vaccinating. We depend on the herd immunity of the population and if that drops, these diseases will definitely come back.

Modern medicine doesn't have cures for things like polio and measles, and we now have a generation or two of doctors who have never seen them. I doubt polio would even be diagnosed quickly these days, as it presents much like many other things, and it would not be on the first list of things a doctor would be looking for. That frightens me.

If people won't do the right thing by choice, then it has to be compulsory.

Religious belief is irrelevant in this context.

[MamaLlama]

Its compulsory in the USA, with the only exception (this is all states) being allergies and in some states for religious reasons. They have extremely low levels of outbreaks. I read this in The Guardian and didn't think of posting it on BubHub, mainly because it just causes heat. The reason The Guardian was talking about it was because outbreaks of diseases, where their are immunisations, was increasing in the UK. The argument being more people were not immunising. Right now in Australia they are using the carrot but if outbreaks increase then the stick will probably be introduced.

I'd love to see the article because I've lived in the US and while it is nominally required for childcare/schools in SOME states...its ridiculously easy to get out of. Same as conscientious objection here. You don't need to be a card carrying lunatic of a relgious nutters group you can just sign you object. I know one state quite recently tried to crack down on how easy it was to get out of, but it is a very small state so I doubt it will make much impact.

The US is even less likely to successfully make this compulsory than we are.

[MamaLlama]

If people won't do the right thing by choice, then it has to be compulsory.

Religious belief is irrelevant in this context.

:yelclap:

These are minors. I think we should protect them even if their parents religion demands them not to. I feel the same way about blood transfusions in kids whose parents are religiously opposed. No parent should be able to deny their child their health on religious grounds. But that's a debate for another day.

REALLY am going to get the washing in now...

[samken]

Interesting MamaLlama, I think the article was based upon how much lower hospitalisation was for immunised diseases was in America and this was given as the reason. As I said it was based upon state-by-state....I will see if they have a historical version of it online.

[Looshkin]

Religious belief is irrelevant in this context.

Hm. Well it seems some strongly disagree to the many vaccinations cultured in fetal tissue, so I guess until they have managed to only use dog or chicken embryos -I feel those that object are well within reason to do so.

How do you rationalise forcing something against someones belief system into their body?

I honestly can't.

[Miriam]

[QUOTE=MamaLlama;3945284]

It should not be a blanket statement. It should be a case-by-case MEDICAL judgment. Not a judgment without reference to family history. A judgment by immunologists based on all the info they think appropriate (family history, skin tests, age, other allergies, severity, titer and many other factors t hat I would need more specialist knowledge to even think of).



For example I have a friend whose daughter is 10 and has leukemia. She's doing ok now and looks like she's going to make the 5 year clear rate (so "cured" if you like)...but she will always be immunocompromised and she'll be on drugs for many years and she is also an organ recipient with loads of drugs suppressing her immunity.

That mum has other kids but even if she didn't... she's fanatical about vaccination. Because her daughter cannot be re-vaccinated, at least not for years and years. If she gets whooping cough or measles or even flu it would kill her. So while she is not vaccinated (or revaccinated) her mum is even more militant about others being vaccinated than I am. Because her daughter relies on others to vaccinate.

Extreme case because she's so susceptible, but still works to illustrate.

Just because 1 sibling is allergic doesn't automatically make the others allergic. They might be. They might not be. I am not qualified to say that the siblings should be vaccinated. But neither are you. Only immunologists are.




You know what ML? Everything that I have quoted you on above, should really be enforced right now. Vaxes are not a one size fits all and that is the current mentality of the medical system. We need to have compulsory screening for all infants who are about to be vaxed. At the moment, there is nothing. This, IMO, is where the problem lies. Surely looking at each child as an individual makes sense.

I am completely against compulsory vaxing, but I am totally all for compulsory safety screening for those who wish to vax. I really hope that this will become the norm in the future. Unfortunately though, it wouldn't be very cost effective, which is why I'm presuming it's not done currently.

[traseal]

Its compulsory in the USA, with the only exception (this is all states) being allergies and in some states for religious reasons. .


That bugs be....i DONT understand why they are excused??:confused:

[MamaLlama]

[QUOTE]

I am completely against compulsory vaxing, but I am totally all for compulsory safety screening for those who wish to vax. I really hope that this will become the norm in the future. Unfortunately though, it wouldn't be very cost effective, which is why I'm presuming it's not done currently.

Fewer than 5% of people can't be vaccinated for a medical reason. If the other 95% were vaccinated it wouldn't matter because herd immunity would almost eradicate these diseases except for stray cases flown in from the developing world. It isn't that hard to identify who needs screening with some simple medical history questions. You don't need to skin test everyone, just those at risk.

And I still think its a medical judgment not some gut feeling by a parent. You can always ask for assurance before vaccination. A relative of mine has egg allergy which runs in his family but his mum asked for skintesting and sure enough he's ok so he's vaccinated. Now yes she could have said "no no no even though the test says he's fine I'm too scared"... luckily she didn't. But I don't think she should be able to sasy that. If its safe then you should have to do it.

Sadly for me though it won't ever be compulsory.

[Chunkydunks]

Choice.

For those saying compulsory and they don't want unvaxxed people around them.....do you realise that vax preventable diseases are more likely to be passed around by vaxxed people because they're unaware that they are carrying the disease. Take WC for instance. A healthy fully vaxxed adult can could unknowingly come into contact with WC and then pass it onto their yet to be fully vaxxed infant. They would be none the wiser that they passed in on to them.

Or mennigecocle (sp). We had family friends send their daughter away on a school camp and come back with t a light cold. Next thing they knew their 6 month old baby was in ICU with menningecocle. Turns out one of the boys at the camp had it without knowing it at the time and the daughter had bought it home but it had only presented as a cold because she was vaxxed.

So if you're that worried about your infant that you wont let a non-vaxxed person near them then maybe you should not let anyone near them because you never know what they're habouring.

[MamaLlama]

That bugs be....i DONT understand why they are excused??:confused:

Take it from someone who lived there for 5 years, America is weirder than you could imagine. On the surface it seems so similar to here but under that surface....the oddest things worry them or don't.

And religion there is just a different universe to here. I seriously think we need to use different words so people don't think they're the same as here :-)

[samken]

MamLlama/Traseal

Found it!....you can read it. I did get some things not right but the argument was pretty much the same.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/feb/10/measles-mmr-vaccine

[Miriam]

[QUOTE=MamaLlama;3945361]

Fewer than 5% of people can't be vaccinated for a medical reason. If the other 95% were vaccinated it wouldn't matter because herd immunity would almost eradicate these diseases



But don't we already currently have a vaccination percentage level of well over 90% in most states and up to 95% in some others?




It isn't that hard to identify who needs screening with some simple medical history questions. You don't need to skin test everyone, just those at risk.


I don't think it's that simple. Many people who have adverse reactions aren't obvious "high risk" cases. Many don't know until they've actually had the vax. This is the frustrating part I guess.

[samken]

[QUOTE]



But don't we already currently have a vaccination percentage level of well over 90% in most states and up to 95% in some others?






I don't think it's that simple. Many people who have adverse reactions aren't obvious "high risk" cases. Many don't know until they've actually had the vax. This is the frustrating part I guess.

That is a good question....what is the vaccination percentage in Australia? Anyone know? It would make these heated arguments redundant.

[Lillynix]

Meh. I can't be bothered.

[MamaLlama]

Public health statistics over many many decades prove beyond doubt that mass vaccination of close to 100% is the only right choice for public health. That's about as likely to be disproven as Evolution but people still argue about that :confused: ;)




You are of course free to disagree with my choice, but you have no right to tell me (or anyone else) that it is wrong.



These are identical positions to me. If I thought you were right I wouldn't disagree :laughing:

[Miriam]

[QUOTE=MamaLlama;3945479]Public health statistics over many many decades prove beyond doubt that mass vaccination of close to 100% is the only right choice for public health.

OK, so 5% of children can't be vaccinated due to medical reasons, but what about our adult population? Are you an advocate of 5-7 yearly boosters of the entire schedule for adults? This would be the only way I can see Herd immunity being achieved. Of course, there are many people who just don't seroconvert, so maybe everyone should have their titers checked regularly as well? Do you think this is achievable?

Also, what do you propose we do with regards to tourism? Overseas toursists can make up a large proportion of our population, especially over the summer months. A town near where I live triples it's population over Summer.

[MsMummy]

I vaccinate but would never support compulsory vaccination.

I think the right to bodily integrity trumps any greater public health benefit.

[MamaLlama]

[QUOTE]

OK, so 5% of children can't be vaccinated due to medical reasons, but what about our adult population? Are you an advocate of 5-7 yearly boosters of the entire schedule for adults? This would be the only way I can see Herd immunity being achieved. Of course, there are many people who just don't seroconvert, so maybe everyone should have their titers checked regularly as well? Do you think this is achievable?

Also, what do you propose we do with regards to tourism? Overseas toursists can make up a large proportion of our population, especially over the summer months. A town near where I live triples it's population over Summer.

Of course I advocate boosters, not all need to be on the same schedule and not all adults will need them but yes there should be greater reminder systems and compulsory as far as possible. Somewhere (this thread or another, can't recall) I said they should make OHS premiums sky high for employers whose employees are not vaccinated or have medical exemption. That would be a very effective enforcement, like schools for kids. Yes there are people who don't work, but it would be a large large contributor to adult vaccination rates.

As for tourists of course they're a risk. That's an even greater reason to increase vaccination rates. I think it is underrated by non vaccinators who claim "these diseases are just so rare in Australia"... yeah maybe they are, maybe they have been for 5-10 years but in literally 24 hours you could have 400 people arrive on a plane who have been breathing in a communicable disease. The cruise ship with swine flu, only aircraft are harder to quarantine.

ETA I don't think bodily integrity should trump public safety, obviously. But to the extent it does I think it even less appropriate for children. Adults to some extent can't be stopped from activities that endanger themselves and others. Children are minors who should be protected as much as possible even if their parents won't do it. I feel the same way about blood transfusions and religious refusal - no parent should be able to deny the child a lifesaving treatment or prevention based on their subjective belief if the public health benefit is strong enough. Those are both examples I believe are strong enough to trump autonomy or parental beliefs.

[samken]

Public health statistics over many many decades prove beyond doubt that mass vaccination of close to 100% is the only right choice for public health. That's about as likely to be disproven as Evolution but people still argue about that :confused: ;)



These are identical positions to me. If I thought you were right I wouldn't disagree :laughing:

Nah! Did you read that article I posted from The Guardian. You only need a certain percentage. If enough people vaccinate then you can protect the people who can't.

IN the area of tourists, this can be a serious factor if the area they are visiting has a low immunisation rate say like Fremantle where I live. It is recognised (I HAVE SEEN THE STATS SOMEWHERE...Hmmm where?) that Fremantle has one of the lowest immunisation groups and yet it is also one of the most transient. This is a huge concern for people who can't immunise. Fremantle Hospital don't release data locally but I'm sure if I look hard enough I could find out if they have had any cases in the last year.

[MamaLlama]

Sorry haven't read it yet as hubbing only 2-3 mins at a time between stuff. But will! And on my previous readings all herd immunity has varied by disease but all been in the 90%+ range, which to me is close to 100% :p

Tourists are a problem yes in places with high proportions. But herd immunity generally works against smaller influxes, because there's no population for the disease to stay viable in. Unless of course the tourists are a huge part of the population. Yes that's not entirely solvable in some specific locations but for the country as a whole it won't be a problem.

I think I addressed tourists further up but gosh I'm forgetting which thread is which now.

[temple]

CHOICE all the way.

I cannot agree with the idea that the ends justify the means (look where that taken us in the past), which is what compulsory vaxx is.

That the rights of some should be walked all over because of the opinions of others is appalling. Vax IS a parental decision, just as deciding what and how to feed your child, what kind of health care you decide is appropriate for your family, how your children are educated, what if any religious unbringing they have.

If you say that the government should enforce compulsory vax, you are implying that parents are unable to and do not deserve the right to make choices for their children. This includes yourself.

I have doubts about the validity of the testing with vax. I have doubts about how they are used. I choose not to vax for many many reasons, but these are paramount. We don't have a medical history of reactions, no illness or disease that makes it inadvisable. But I do happen to live in a country that says it is my choice whether I vax my children or not. And I choose to exercise that right, as does every parent, one way or the other. Just because you may not agree, or even like it, does not mean that you have the right to force it on my children.


Interesting to note, in the current Immunisation handbook, it says that there has not been a case of polio since 1978. But that we should all still vax for it, incase someone from overseas brings it in. But seeing as there has, according the the handbook, not been a case since 1978, that is THIRTY years of tourists, without a case of polio...

[FionaV]

Hm. Well it seems some strongly disagree to the many vaccinations cultured in fetal tissue, so I guess until they have managed to only use dog or chicken embryos -I feel those that object are well within reason to do so.

How do you rationalise forcing something against someones belief system into their body?

I honestly can't.

Easily - for the public good, social responsibility and the safety of the wider community.

But, then, I am coming from a position where I think most religious beliefs are pretty much irrational anyway.


Interesting to note, in the current Immunisation handbook, it says that there has not been a case of polio since 1978. But that we should all still vax for it, incase someone from overseas brings it in. But seeing as there has, according the the handbook, not been a case since 1978, that is THIRTY years of tourists, without a case of polio...

There hasn't been a case of polio in thirty years BECAUSE of high levels of immunisation in this country. And high levels of immunisation in most other developed countries - the large majority of our tourists would also be immunised. Immunisation is required of immigrants to the country - at least of refugees, and I assume of others as well.

The disappearance of these diseases from our everyday life is not some flaky coincidence - it is completely and entirely due to immunisation. If most of the population is immune to the disease, the disease does not manifest.

However, the viruses that cause these diseases are still there in the world and, if immunisation levels continue to drop, they will return. To a community that has forgotten what they look like (would you even think that your flu-ey child might be incubating polio or diphtheria?) and to a medical profession that, by and large, has never seen them.

That prospect scares the **** out of me. My children are fully immunised and would, in an epidemic, hopefully at worst only catch a mild dose of whatever was rampaging. Unimmunised children would die in numbers.

This is a real possibility, not just a parental nightmare.

[MamaLlama]

The disappearance of these diseases from our everyday life is not some flaky coincidence - it is completely and entirely due to immunisation. .

:yelclap::yelclap::yelclap: I t hink I might have to put the phrase "flaky coincidence" in my signature or something. Love it. :yes:

BTW yes I think I too am not qualified to decide the immunological status of my child. I am not an immunologist. Nor am I qualified to teach my child university level physics or operate on his appendix. Those are jobs for experts. As is this. It is not comparable to what you feed your child though I wish people would take more guidance from the experts there too.

As for the ends justifying the means what about rbt? The US has a real problem with random breath testing and in a lot of states you can't do it because it is "an infringement of privacy". Here we call it a means to an end, safer roads.

From where I stand we are no less free than the US, personally with safer roads I think we're MORE free.

[BabelFish]

I believe that vaccination should be compulsory unless medically determined otherwise. I doubt that it will ever happen, but it's what I believe to be the best thing for society as a whole.

I also believe that many millions more public health dollars need to be put into vaccines and vaccine research.

[missie_mack]

would you even think that your flu-ey child might be incubating polio

No but if he was as long as good hygiene is practiced and your not ingesting his fecal matter your not at risk anyway :rolleyes:

[FionaV]

No but if he was as long as good hygiene is practiced and your not ingesting his fecal matter your not at risk anyway :rolleyes:

So as long as you're practising good hygiene and not putting yourself at risk, it's okay if your child gets polio and become crippled, condemned to life in an iron lung or dies?

I really don't understand this. My concern is actually not for my own safety, but for the unvaccinated child's, who is being put needlessly at risk.

[bunintheoven12]

choice

I'd like to see the government try and bring it in!! I would never allow my children to be injected with such scary ingredients. I would go to any length to protect my children from being forced to be done.

[missie_mack]

So as long as you're practising good hygiene and not putting yourself at risk, it's okay if your child gets polio and become crippled, condemned to life in an iron lung or dies?

I really don't understand this. My concern is actually not for my own safety, but for the unvaccinated child's, who is being put needlessly at risk.

Firstly not all people who contract polio are crippled only about 0.1% of those who actually contract the virus are crippled and of those with paralysis about 5-35% of those experience breathing difficulties link (http://www.post-polionetwork.org.au/smforum/index.php?page=118)

I think you are also forgetting if good hygiene is practiced and taught and enforced the child who has to not only come in contact with someone who has the virus but ingest their poo. If they were in a high risk scenerio I may feel differently but I am not. But currently no I do not feel we are in a high risk scenerio
but of course I cannot speak for your family and their habits, so if you feel your family are likely to ingest not just poo but infected poo by all means I can appreciate your stance on vaccinating for polio.

Its interesting to note most cases of polio in the last 40 years come from children shedding the virus onto their parents (with nappy changing) from the oral dose of the vaccine... and yet did not pass the virus onto anyone else within their lives

[my_lot]

So the polio outbreak happened because people ate poo?

[missie_mack]

So the polio outbreak happened because people ate poo?

Yes you need to ingest infected poo to get it. Pretty horrifying in thought (especially as I had a great uncle have polio as a baby and they were very tidy people) however putting it into perspective my great grandmother didn't have the same options of hygiene that we have now like running water in homes particularly hot water, she used bedpans at night, they had the old toilets which contained everyones waste until the 'dunny man' came, clothes were washed in a copper and antiseptics were unheard of...

Whilst the societies where polio is prevalent don't have immunisation nor do they have the luxuries like running water and sewage systems like we do which is a contributing factor.

[MamaLlama]

So the polio outbreak happened because people ate poo?

Classic. Totally sums up how ridiculous this is. Hygeine and running water/healthcare were not part of the scenario in Australia in the 60s. Yet I know people who were crippled with polio then.

Where is the emoticon of someone falling off her chair laughing? They really need to expand the options on the right here....

[missie_mack]

Polio (poliomyelitis or infantile paralysis as it has also been called) is a viral disease that was common in the Western world until the early 1960s. Polio is caused by an enterovirus. There are three distinct strains, none of which provides cross-immunity to the others. Infection occurs through the faecal-oral route, through direct or indirect contact


The infection rate is high in areas with poor hygiene. Exposure to the virus at an early age is thought to be less likely to result in paralytic disease. The disease:infection ratio is therefore low. Paradoxically, in areas of improved hygiene where the infection rate decreases, the disease:infection ratio increases, probably because exposure to the virus will occur later in life, when the development of clinical symptoms is more likely. This probably explains the high rate of paralytic polio which was observed during the epidemics of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s in countries such as Australia, turning polio into a "modern" disease.

Link www.post-polionetwork.org.au (http://www.post-polionetwork.org.au)

[samken]

Link www.post-polionetwork.org.au (http://www.post-polionetwork.org.au)

Sorry missie_mack I know you like to think we don't have contact with faecal if we practice good hygiene but there are many habits society has which makes it very common. Using soap to wash ourselves comes to mind.

It is rare but it does exist. There is always concerns whenever their is flooding or earthquakes etc. We don't actually miss out on these things in Australia.

[LilShenanigans]

How Is Polio Spread?

Polio can be spread by a number of ways. People who have not been immunized against polio or have a weakened immune system may contract polio from individuals who are receiving the oral polio vaccine. In developing nations, the polio virus is spread by eating food or drinking water contaminated by the polio virus. The polio virus may also be contracted through direct contact with infected stool or throat secretions. People are most infectious a few days before and after the onset of symptoms.

[FionaV]

But currently no I do not feel we are in a high risk scenerio
but of course I cannot speak for your family and their habits, so if you feel your family are likely to ingest not just poo but infected poo by all means I can appreciate your stance on vaccinating for polio.


Leaving out the unnecessary personal attack and extreme *****iness in this paragraph, anyone who works or deals with children can tell you that the risks are there.

I work in a primary school. We talk about hygiene, handwashing and all the rest of it all the time, but I am willing to promise you there are very few children who wash their hands every single time they go to the toilet. I have small children of my own, and I'm quite sure that when I'm not there, and there are games to be played and fun to be had, they don't always remember to wash their hands either.

Are they coming into contact with infected faecal matter? Hopefully not. This is Australia in 2009, with a still highly-vaccinated population. However, I can't guarantee it. Nobody can. Why in heaven's name would I take unnecessary risks just for the sake of being a rebel and going against the government?

[MamaLlama]

Why in heaven's name would I take unnecessary risks just for the sake of being a rebel and going against the government?

I'm gradually reaching the conclusion that this, and not fear or god-forbid science, which drives the anti-vaccination population. The more I read the more it comes back to rebelling against "control" than anything else.

Personally I'm grateful the government restricts people's behaviour. It is the only reason its safe-ish to drive on the roads for a start.

[Opinionated]

Just have to comment on all the "poo" comments.

It seems that most people think that it is pretty unlikely that someone would ingest poo. However, it is more common than you think.

Every time there is a food poisoning outbreak due to E.coli bacteria, it is basically caused by poo. E.coli is found in the human digestive tract, so to infect food, someone hasn't thoroughly washed their hands.

I may trust my own hygiene practices, but as someone that worked a long time in hospitality, I wouldn't trust others. I do concede that it needs to be polio infected poo, but don't think that you don't ever ingest poo germs, because if you eat any type of food prepared by others, sooner or later you may.

[MamaLlama]

Just have to comment on all the "poo" comments.

It seems that most people think that it is pretty unlikely that someone would ingest poo. However, it is more common than you think.

Every time there is a food poisoning outbreak due to E.coli bacteria, it is basically caused by poo. E.coli is found in the human digestive tract, so to infect food, someone hasn't thoroughly washed their hands.

I may trust my own hygiene practices, but as someone that worked a long time in hospitality, I wouldn't trust others. I do concede that it needs to be polio infected poo, but don't think that you don't ever ingest poo germs, because if you eat any type of food prepared by others, sooner or later you may.

:iagree: Also as said earlier it is impossible to guarantee kids don't have less hygeine. Until germs come with little flourescent gene implants so you can see them on the kids' hands that is.

I used to be a waitress. I try not to think about food handling when eating out. So far so good but you never know what others do.

[MissMetal]

I am a pro vaxer :yes: but i think everyone is entitled to their own choice & it would be silly to make it compulsary.

[BabelFish]

I'm gradually reaching the conclusion that this, and not fear or god-forbid science, which drives the anti-vaccination population. The more I read the more it comes back to rebelling against "control" than anything else.
I couldn't agree more with this statement. I read another member on here in a different thread saying that they didn't vaccinate because they didn't trust the government. This was the ONLY reason given.

To say I was stunned was an understatement.

Sure, if we lived in Zimbabwe or Cambodia, perhaps. But in Australia we have a government that isn't so hopelessly corrupt and self-serving that while it's prudent not to blindly trust them, to put your child and the rest of the community in danger over it seems, well ...

[Fuchsia!]

Yep i don't vax cause im a rebel :rollseyes:

Just goes to show how much your really know how non vaxxers thinks.