+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 58
  1. #31
    harvs's Avatar
    harvs is offline Winner 2014 - Spirit of BubHub Award
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    9,997
    Thanks
    6,239
    Thanked
    15,895
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/4/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 2/4/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 19/3/15Busiest Member of the Week200 Posts in a week
    I don't read it that the OP was saying that you can compare the two, more that the principle behind the two is similar: both have strong opinionated camps for and against and relatively few fencesitters. So, suspending disbelief for a second and assuming that there was overwhelming peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support the idea. If RIC was linked to welfare payment...

    No... I still don't think I could bring myself to do it.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to harvs For This Useful Post:

    Hootenanny  (13-04-2015)

  3. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,054
    Thanks
    269
    Thanked
    1,053
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Look ultimately I know this is not an argument I am going to win, and in regards to circing not one I want to win, but I hoped people might think for just a moment, the govt is putting in place a system which will force parents to do something they think is harmful for their child. Choose that risk or the money, that is what they are asking. What other legal right to consent could be held to ransom in the future?

  4. #33
    harvs's Avatar
    harvs is offline Winner 2014 - Spirit of BubHub Award
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    9,997
    Thanks
    6,239
    Thanked
    15,895
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/4/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 2/4/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 19/3/15Busiest Member of the Week200 Posts in a week
    Yeah I feel as though people are overlooking the point.

    I guess it could be substituted for anything that parents have a 'choice' about:

    Vax
    RIC
    BF/FF
    Baby wearing/prams
    AP/non AP (sorry, don't know what the other end of the spectrum is called!)

    Is it moral for a government to attempt to influence these decisions by withholding money (not even offering a financial inducement with giving extra money, but actually *withholding* it)?

    To me, the answer is no - as long as all of these decisions are legal, then it is one more aspect in which lower income families are likely to be impacted far more greatly.

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    3,267
    Thanks
    1,892
    Thanked
    1,916
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the WeekBusiest Member of the Week - week ended 19/9/2014Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/7/2014200 Posts in a week100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Hootenanny View Post
    Look ultimately I know this is not an argument I am going to win, and in regards to circing not one I want to win, but I hoped people might think for just a moment, the govt is putting in place a system which will force parents to do something they think is harmful for their child. Choose that risk or the money, that is what they are asking. What other legal right to consent could be held to ransom in the future?
    But it's not forcing anyone to do anything. Parents can still opt not to vaccinate and if they feel that strongly then money won't sway them.

    The government is putting in place a disincentive to ignore sound medical and scientific advice which will at best sway some fencesitters and, just to get to the heart of the matter - encourage people to do something that is Not harmful for their child.

    I don't see this as a precedent for losing legal rights to consent in future because 1) no right to consent is being removed, and 2) I have faith in the public health policy makers because I used to be one of them and our public service is one of the most respected, that plus I don't believe in conspiracy theories.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ScubaGal For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (13-04-2015),Curby  (13-04-2015),Gentoo  (13-04-2015),JustJaq  (13-04-2015)

  7. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,509
    Thanks
    396
    Thanked
    701
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts

    Default Mandatory Circumcision? Benefits outweigh risks 100 to 1.

    Quote Originally Posted by harvs View Post
    Yeah I feel as though people are overlooking the point.

    I guess it could be substituted for anything that parents have a 'choice' about:

    Vax
    RIC
    BF/FF
    Baby wearing/prams
    AP/non AP (sorry, don't know what the other end of the spectrum is called!)

    Is it moral for a government to attempt to influence these decisions by withholding money (not even offering a financial inducement with giving extra money, but actually *withholding* it)?

    To me, the answer is no - as long as all of these decisions are legal, then it is one more aspect in which lower income families are likely to be impacted far more greatly.
    I don't think pram/ baby wearing, ff/bf is anything like this situation though. You wearing your baby does not in any way impact the safety of my baby or the lives of others.

    I get what you're saying that if the government as going to dictate one parenting choice, what's to stop them dictating others. I would like to think that the government has millions of better things to worry about than how parents chose to transport their offspring around.

    Eta: I guess this is just part of the criteria to qualify for the payments. So instead of taking the payments away, they have simply changed the eligibility criteria for the payments, which in turn is almost paying people to vaccinate.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Curby For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (13-04-2015)

  9. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,054
    Thanks
    269
    Thanked
    1,053
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ScubaGal View Post
    But it's not forcing anyone to do anything. Parents can still opt not to vaccinate and if they feel that strongly then money won't sway them.

    The government is putting in place a disincentive to ignore sound medical and scientific advice which will at best sway some fencesitters and, just to get to the heart of the matter - encourage people to do something that is Not harmful for their child.

    I don't see this as a precedent for losing legal rights to consent in future because 1) no right to consent is being removed, and 2) I have faith in the public health policy makers because I used to be one of them and our public service is one of the most respected, that plus I don't believe in conspiracy theories.
    They already had a disincentive for the fence sitters, getting a CO is not easy. There is a term called legal consent used when consenting to vaccines.


    For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:

    It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.
    It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
    It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
    It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options have been explained to the individual.
    So either the consent will be illegal or they are going to have to change the law.

    Parents who cannot provide for their families without these payments will be forced, dress it up however you like it, but it is forced vaccination.

  10. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    3,267
    Thanks
    1,892
    Thanked
    1,916
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the WeekBusiest Member of the Week - week ended 19/9/2014Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/7/2014200 Posts in a week100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Hootenanny View Post
    .

    Parents who cannot provide for their families without these payments will be forced, dress it up however you like it, but it is forced vaccination.
    Well good then.

    It will be "forced" in the same way that we also try to force people not to drink and drive (through penalties and threat of loss of licence) which can have a similar effect on livelihood/family budget.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ScubaGal For This Useful Post:

    ExcuseMyFrench  (14-04-2015),MsViking  (03-06-2015)

  12. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,202
    Thanked
    16,895
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Yeah my understanding is it's pretty simple to get a CO form signed. Bc it isn't about whether the GP agrees, the form is simply to say you know the risks. Once you say you understand, then they sign.

  13. #39
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    I could poke so many holes in this study it just isn't even funny. But this is what anti vaxxers don't seem to understand - we aren't just talking about one study from an extremely biased doctor who is not a specialist in that field - we are talking of literally 10s of thousands of studies.

    If 10s of thousands of studies came out showing overwhelmingly that circ was safe, effective and needed, then I would reconsider- but they haven't - and they won't.

    Here for anyone who wants to see the study broken down - I mean - he references himself and previous non peer reviewed letters in this new study 4 times - who does that!!?? Hardly unbiased.

    It also mentions many other studies - that have found the complete opposite to this guy - who references his own letters:roll eyes:

    Here is a taster. "circumcision made no significant difference to the risk of STI acquisition. In fact, circumcised men were slightly more at risk, with 24.4 cases per 1000 person years, compared with 23.4 cases among the intact. “These findings are consistent with recent population-based cross-sectional studies in developed countries, which found that early childhood circumcision does not markedly reduce the risk [of] common STIs in the general population.”

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    meredithgreyxxx  (13-04-2015),ScubaGal  (13-04-2015),VicPark  (13-04-2015)

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,054
    Thanks
    269
    Thanked
    1,053
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by meredithgrey View Post
    Sounds like it actually is. Go to a GP, tell them you are aware of the information and risks and sign the form.
    There is a great deal of resistance to it from Drs, I had to talk to a Dr and then a vax nurse. People I know had to try a few different Drs.


 

Similar Threads

  1. Know the risks of D&C's - Asherman's Syndrome
    By Starf1sh in forum Pregnancy Loss Support
    Replies: 256
    Last Post: 15-11-2016, 10:20
  2. Family tax benefits
    By maternidade in forum Family Finances
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 30-06-2014, 23:53

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Einsteinz Music
Make music at Einsteinz Music in age-appropriate class in Sydney's Inner West, Eastern Suburbs or North Shore. For ages 6 mths - 4 yrs. All music is live! Christmas Gift certificates available for full term or casual classes. Call 0431 338 143
sales & new stuffsee all
CarmelsBeautySecrets
Growing your own natural nails is easy. Years ago, I devised a simple and very effective technique which really helps boosts the nails' growth in as little as three days! And most importantly keeps them that way.
featured supporter
HuggleBib
The HuggleBib is not "just another" baby bib. Sure, your child may be a messy eater who gets more food ON them rather than IN them, so you dread cleaning after feeding times! Well the HuggleBib is THE best solution to help with all these daily tasks!
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!