State takes away rights of parents again

[kis123]

This same guy also says that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. I think I'll listen to someone else.

You simply won't listen to anyone who contradicts you and that's certainly your business. The bottom line is that no parent is going to sit idly by and allow the state to make them offer their kid up as a lab rat for pharmaceutical companies to peddle their wares. If you want to do that for your child, that's your business-good luck with that. For the rest of us, we are of sound mind and minimum average intelligence. We all can read and make the decision for ourselves. We don't need the state forcing us to do anything thank you very much!

 

[venray]

And Spiff..you never answered my question..have you had a flu shot this year? last year? year before?

Just curious as to why or why not...

 

[kis123]

Um why are these folks not mandated to get the shot....why not everyone?

If we are so concerned with protecting others should not everyone get the shot to protect us as well? i mean...fair is fair...

You cant single out a portion of the populace and force them to get innoculated while giving free choice to everyone else...especially that portion which is unable to make decisions and relies on parental discretion to make those decisions for their developing years....what country do we live in?

Obviously you can when you don't have enough stats and data on them. What a great way to further studies than to mandate drug use on a group who literally can't speak for themselves? Oh and the parents?? Well, the government has always known what's best for everyone right??

Anyone read George Orwell's 1999? Just change the year to 2009 and you'll have the sequel!

 

[Icycle]

I'd just like to point out that the New Jersey proposal doesn't require all children to get the flu shot, only those children in preschool and licensed day care. Parents in New Jersey who refuse to vaccinate their children can simply not enroll them in pre-school or day care. If it is really that important to them, parents have options.

Also, another reason why it is important to vaccinate broadly is there are some people who can not get vaccinated for medical reasons, such as as those with egg allergies or those with compromised immune systems. The best protection those people have is for their contacts and caregivers to get the vaccine.

Finally, for anyone who is a fan of the This American Life radio program, if you haven't already done so, I recommend listening to episode #370 that aired last month. One of the stories in this episode was about the havoc caused in San Diego that impacted and endangered thousands of people due to a measles outbreak caused by a few parents who refused to vaccinate their children.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1275

 

[venray]

I'd just like to point out that the New Jersey proposal doesn't require all children to get the flu shot, only those children in preschool and licensed day care. Parents in New Jersey who refuse to vaccinate their children can simply not enroll them in pre-school or day care. If it is really that important to them, parents have options.

Also, another reason why it is important to vaccinate broadly is there are some people who can not get vaccinated for medical reasons, such as as those with egg allergies or those with compromised immune systems. The best protection those people have is for their contacts and caregivers to get the vaccine.

Finally, for anyone who is a fan of the This American Life radio program, if you haven't already done so, I recommend listening to episode #370 that aired last month. One of the stories in this episode was about the havoc caused in San Diego that impacted and endangered thousands of people due to a measles outbreak caused by a few parents who refused to vaccinate their children.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1275

Measles and the flu are not cpmprable....as we have discussed over and over in this thread...The measles vaccine stops measles...the flu vaccine stops less than 2 % of the strains out there...

 

[Icycle]

Finally, for anyone who is a fan of the This American Life radio program, if you haven't already done so, I recommend listening to episode #370 that aired last month. One of the stories in this episode was about the havoc caused in San Diego that impacted and endangered thousands of people due to a measles outbreak caused by a few parents who refused to vaccinate their children.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radi...spx?sched=1275

Measles and the flu are not cpmprable....as we have discussed over and over in this thread...The measles vaccine stops measles...the flu vaccine stops less than 2 % of the strains out there...

I'm sorry if I was not more clear. I did not mean to imply that people should get the flu vaccine by making an inappropriate reference to the measles vaccine. I was merely pointing out an interesting and entertaining radio program related to a topic that many people on this thread are passionate about and interested in.

 

[ex_tenebros]

Measles and the flu are not cpmprable....as we have discussed over and over in this thread...The measles vaccine stops measles...the flu vaccine stops less than 2 % of the strains out there...

This would be important if every strain was equally contagious and equally virulent. But they are not. In fact many strains don't readily infect humans at all. It's deceptive to claim that it "stops less than 2% of strains" if those strains cause the great majority of dangerous infections in humans.

 

[ex_tenebros]

Now the benefits may indeed help some, but the government should NOT mandate this to be given to children. taking away the parental right to choose. Not based on a "best guess" which is hardly reason for parents to be forced to take their kids for shots.

An expert virologist's "best guess" is more reliable than a parent's untrained personal preferences. And as another poster pointed out, parents are "forced" to immunize their children only if they want to use public school facilities.

 

[ex_tenebros]

Um why are these folks not mandated to get the shot....why not everyone?

You misunderstand.

First, "those who are not vaccinated" includes children who legally should be but are not.

Second, the mandatory vaccination applies only to those whose parents wish to use public facilities. It was never intended to apply to everyone, or even to all children. The state has a legitimate interest in controlling what happens in public schools. But even children who do not attend public schools will still be less likely to catch the flu if those who do are vaccinated.

Third, the state legally acts <i>in loco parentis</i> ("in the place of a parent") when the actual parent fails in responsibility as defined by the state. The state has long taken away the parents' "choice" to beat their children bloody, for example, or to abandon their children. Parents may not leave their children uneducated - children must go to school of some sort, be it public, private, or qualified home instruction. However the state's rights over legal adults are much more limited. That's why the state does not mandate vaccination for adults except in certain fields such as health care.

Fourth, children are among those most likely to be seriously harmed by catching the flu. They are the most likely to need protection and the least likely to protect themselves.

 

[Rorshach]

Venray, I will say you put up a fine debate until you started with the emoticons and attempts to end the converstion prematurely. Thank you for getting back on topic.

I'm not a fan of big government, but the ruling seems reasonable to me. As has been pointed out, the protection is not only for the flu shot recipient, but those that he or she interacts with. Spock or Skywalker aside, in THIS case, the needs of the many DO outweigh the objections of proud parents.

I think if a parent has the appropriate degrees in medicine and biology, he or she might be qualified to make the decision as to whether or not their child should get a flu shot. Unemployed single parents under the age of 25 have absolutely no business making such decisions in my opinion.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Vaccines work against any disease that you don't want to catch.

That depends on the strain, and doesn't take account of opportunistic secondary infections. But "not dying" still leaves a lot of room for getting very, very sick, and costing the public and employers a whole lot of money.

Not wearing a seatbelt won't necessarily kill you either.

I know of no evidence at all that immunization increases the mutation rate of a pathogen. Where would I find this? On the other hand there's very good evidence that vaccination is effective against the agents for which it's designed, and that widespread vaccination helps to protect even those who are not vaccinated.

That's alleged against thimerosal, a preservative used in some vaccines. The evidence is extremely conflicted, and the general opinion seems to be that there is no connection. But parents who are concerned about this simply need to insist on a vaccine formulation that leaves out thimerosal. There are several.

Again, seatbelts seem like a very small and personal decision compared to this.

Good points, but the question remains... do you think it's the government's right to mandate a vaccination? I don't.

 

[kis123]

Spock or Skywalker aside, in THIS case, the needs of the many DO outweigh the objections of proud parents.

I think if a parent has the appropriate degrees in medicine and biology, he or she might be qualified to make the decision as to whether or not their child should get a flu shot. Unemployed single parents under the age of 25 have absolutely no business making such decisions in my opinion.

If the state gets away with this, what else will the state take over? This has nothing to do with medicine because if it did, the scientists would take the time to develop a flu vaccine that works just like they did with MMR and others. It makes no sense to subject a child to a vaccine with such a lousy percentage rate and if a different strain of flu breaks out then it doesn't work for the child at all.

Parents of sound mind and intelligence do not need degrees in medicine or bilolgy to make a judgement. Post the facts for the parents to come to their own conclusions; some will get their kids the shot, others won't. I thought we lived in a democracy not a rule utilitarianism state.

If you have children and still come to this conclusion after reading the facts, sounds great to me. But if you don't have children, you're entitled to your opinion but I firmly it's the parents basic human right to protect their children from harm. This is not beneficial to infants and toddlers based on the present research available.

 

[MrMacphisto]

I'm not a fan of big government, but the ruling seems reasonable to me. As has been pointed out, the protection is not only for the flu shot recipient, but those that he or she interacts with. Spock or Skywalker aside, in THIS case, the needs of the many DO outweigh the objections of proud parents.

I think if a parent has the appropriate degrees in medicine and biology, he or she might be qualified to make the decision as to whether or not their child should get a flu shot. Unemployed single parents under the age of 25 have absolutely no business making such decisions in my opinion.

That's a very slippery slope. Being qualified to make choices for your kids is generally assumed to be the norm unless you're actually abusing them. I don't see refusing a vaccination as equivalent to abuse.

Even when considering how this relates to kids interacting with other kids, the vaccination will help those kids who get them, but the ones who don't get them won't necessarily get sick, and they won't necessarily cause other kids to get sick.

Preventive measures are good for foresight, but most of the time, I don't think they should be mandatory.

 

[ex_tenebros]

Good points, but the question remains... do you think it's the government's right to mandate a vaccination? I don't.

For public health reasons beyond the immediate health of the child? Yes.

How do you feel about fluoridated water?

 

[MrMacphisto]

For public health reasons beyond the immediate health of the child? Yes.

How do you feel about fluoridated water?

Flouridated water isn't comparable. No one forces you to drink from the tap. You can always buy bottled water if flouridation bothers you.

 

[Icycle]

Good points, but the question remains... do you think it's the government's right to mandate a vaccination? I don't.

For many vaccinations, such as for measles, mumps, rubella, and pertussis, I believe that it is the government's right and responsibility to mandate vaccination in the name of public health. These diseases are very serious, complications from the vaccine are rare, and it is necessary to have vaccination rates of 80%-95% to maintain herd immunity. When vaccination rates fall below this level, very serious localized outbreaks or even epidemics can occur.

The case for universal flu vaccination is more equivocal, since the consequences of influenza for a healthy adult are generally not serious. But for high risk populations and those in frequent contact with them, mandatory vaccination could be a prudent measure. But even healthy adults could be at serious risk in the case of another pandemic flu like the 1918 Spanish flu.

Perhaps there is so much vocal opposition to vaccination these days because most people alive today in America don't remember what it was like in the days before routine vaccination. We've virtually eliminated many horrible diseases through vaccination, and quarantines are virtually unheard of. Perhaps we will start to re-learn some painful lessons as vaccination rates continue to decline.

 

[MrMacphisto]

For many vaccinations, such as for measles, mumps, rubella, and pertussis, I believe that it is the government's right and responsibility to mandate vaccination in the name of public health. These diseases are very serious, complications from the vaccine are rare, and it is necessary to have vaccination rates of 80%-95% to maintain herd immunity. When vaccination rates fall below this level, very serious localized outbreaks or even epidemics can occur.

The case for universal flu vaccination is more equivocal, since the consequences of influenza for a healthy adult are generally not serious. But for high risk populations and those in frequent contact with them, mandatory vaccination could be a prudent measure. But even healthy adults could be at serious risk in the case of another pandemic flu like the 1918 Spanish flu.

Perhaps there is so much vocal opposition to vaccination these days because most people alive today in America don't remember what it was like in the days before routine vaccination. We've virtually eliminated many horrible diseases through vaccination, and quarantines are virtually unheard of. Perhaps we will start to re-learn some painful lessons as vaccination rates continue to decline.

Again, those are good points, but isn't it true that most of the historical examples you provided did not involve an actual mandate? I thought, in most cases, people voluntarily get vaccinated.

For example, I would probably get my child vaccinated if I had one. I just don't like being coerced into doing it.

 

[venray]

What I find most ironic is that the government lets us choose whether or not to abort a child and yet they do not let us choose whether or not to innoculate them.....

 

[MrMacphisto]

What I find most ironic is that the government lets us choose whether or not to abort a child and yet they do not let us choose whether or not to innoculate them.....

Very true... Consistency in policy is best.

Freedom of choice really is paramount in maintaining a free society.

 

[venray]

Indeed, and freedom of choice is what I have been arguing for in this thread. Others dont see this as a problem, but I do....😉

 

[ex_tenebros]

Flouridated water isn't comparable. No one forces you to drink from the tap. You can always buy bottled water if flouridation bothers you.

No one forces parents in New Jersey to send their children to public schools either. It seems very comparable to me.

 

[Icycle]

Again, those are good points, but isn't it true that most of the historical examples you provided did not involve an actual mandate? I thought, in most cases, people voluntarily get vaccinated.

For example, I would probably get my child vaccinated if I had one. I just don't like being coerced into doing it.

Every state in the United States requires children to be vaccinated against a wide range of illnesses in order to attend public or private schools. Many states allow exemptions for medical or religious reasons. A few offer exemptions on philosophical grounds. Such laws date back to the 1960s or 1970s in most cases. This is approximately the same degree of mandate as the New Jersey law.

I'm sure many people do get themselves and/or their children voluntarily vaccinated, since the individual benefits are so large. But I'm sure there are also many who get their kids vaccinated because they must in order to enroll their children in kindergarten.

 

[Icycle]

Very true... Consistency in policy is best.

Freedom of choice really is paramount in maintaining a free society.

To quote Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Unlikely many other cases, where the free choice impacts only the person making the choice, the choice to vaccinate has implications far beyond the individual making the choice. A person who chooses not to be immunized can act as a catalyst for the spread of epidemic illness. As the saying goes, "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."

The government must balance individual freedom against the public good. I would ague that preventing deadly epidemics is a large public good. Since preventing epidemics requires a high percentage of immunized individuals, the government is right to mandate immunizations.

 

[venray]

To quote Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Unlikely many other cases, where the free choice impacts only the person making the choice, the choice to vaccinate has implications far beyond the individual making the choice. A person who chooses not to be immunized can act as a catalyst for the spread of epidemic illness. As the saying goes, "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."

The government must balance individual freedom against the public good. I would ague that preventing deadly epidemics is a large public good. Since preventing epidemics requires a high percentage of immunized individuals, the government is right to mandate immunizations.

LOL not where the flu is concerned....and NOT unless they mandate the shot for everyone. If hundreds of thousands do not get the shot, then the effect of those that do on the rest of you is miniscule in the grand sceme of things....and if YOU dont get the shot then you've no right to expect anyone else to...

 

[ex_tenebros]

LOL not where the flu is concerned....and NOT unless they mandate the shot for everyone. If hundreds of thousands do not get the shot, then the effect of those that do on the rest of you is miniscule in the grand sceme of things....and if YOU dont get the shot then you've no right to expect anyone else to...

Hundreds of thousands do. In fact millions do. And I do.

The more people get it, the more protection those who don't get it have. That's why this is a public health issue.