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.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 40 of 58
13-04-2015 17:05 #31
The Following User Says Thank You to harvs For This Useful Post:
13-04-2015 17:06 #32
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?
13-04-2015 17:10 #33
Yeah I feel as though people are overlooking the point.
I guess it could be substituted for anything that parents have a 'choice' about:
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.
13-04-2015 17:15 #34
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.
13-04-2015 17:19 #35
Mandatory Circumcision? Benefits outweigh risks 100 to 1.
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to Curby For This Useful Post:
13-04-2015 17:25 #36
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.
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.
13-04-2015 17:36 #37
13-04-2015 17:37 #38
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.
13-04-2015 17:45 #39Senior Member
- Join Date
- May 2006
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.”
13-04-2015 17:47 #40
Billington StreetFor stationery as unique as you are! ♥ Handmade, custom designed stationery for all of life's celebrations WINNER ...
LATESTWhy it is OK for your child to be differentWhat is a blessing way? How is it different to a baby shower?7 ways to break the ‘mumnotony’ at home
POPULARWhen can I start giving chores to my children?New baby nursery checklist – a guide to newborn essentialsWhat to pack for labour and hospital – a checklist
FORUMS - chatting now ...
HGC lelvelsConception & Fertility General Chat
ongoing chat threadGeneral Chat
April/May TTC group chatConception & Fertility General Chat
Bbt chart thread #8Conception & Fertility General Chat
Albert?Choosing Baby Names
Miracle March TTC and Testing ChatConception & Fertility General Chat
Falling pregnant a few months after giving birthGeneral Chat