Outbreak of measles in Cork. None of affected children had been vaccinated.

Gurgle

Monty Burnz wrote: »

if a few people don't get the immunisation, they are really only risking themselves.

This (stupid, ill-informed, irresponsible) decision isn't made by 2-day old babies.

steddyeddy

ShanePouch wrote: »

I'm afraid if that's what you think , than you misunderstand me as I have said no such thing.

I respect the rights of parents to make decisions for their children, and I even respect their right to make what I consider might be wrong decisions for their children.

I don't relish living in a society where parents who genuinely believe that vaccination might be harmful, are forced to vaccinate their children against their better judgment.

I disagree with people who believe many things, but I am tolerant of their rights to disagree and hold different opinions. I dont think a few parents choosing not to have their children vaccinated poses a threat to society, as recent events seem to prove.

Should you decide its child cruelty to opt not to have ones children vaccinated, then I disagree, quite apart from the fact I suspect that any attempts by the Irish state to force parents to vaccinate their children would be scuppered, quite rightly, by the European Court of Human Rights.

I am now repeating what I said earlier so unless there are some new points to address, will stop repeating myself.

I dont think parents should have the right to deliberately expose their children to harm. Could you detail how not immunising your child from a disease isnt cruel?

Stark

ShanePouch wrote: »

I respect the rights of parents to make decisions for their children, and I even respect their right to make what I consider might be wrong decisions for their children.

So you'd resent parents being forced to feed their children. Or forced to allow them blood transfusions. Or not being allowed to mutilate their children's genitals.

Monty Burnz

Gurgle wrote: »

This (stupid, ill-informed, irresponsible) decision isn't made by 2-day old babies.

Of course - should read 'their children' - thought I'd edited it...

ShanePouch

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What recent events? Recent events like the outbreaks of measles mentioned in the OP?

Sure, if a few people don't get the immunisation, they are really only risking themselves. But if it creeps up to 10-15%, it affects us all. And of course, the same people will probably be expecting to tap the public healthcare purse to deal with their child's illness and if the illness causes some disability the taxpayer will be on the hook for that too.

So if it creeps up to 10-15%, what do you propose when it reaches a level you deem dangerous?

I agree about the taxpayer implicataions, and have often wondered who pays, for example, for the drugs for homosexual men who seek out unsafe sex and contract HIV. Or smokers who contract lung cancer, or boozers who get liver disease and so and so on.

I notice you haven’t addressed the not insignificant issue of the likely objections of the European Court of Human Rights to any legislation compelling parents, in this case, to have their children vaccinated.

For the last time, I am going to point out that I agree with you that vaccination is a good and desirable thing.

Where we seem to differ is that

1. You seem to be advocating a law which forces parents to vaccinate their children against various diseases, against their will, (whereas I prefer the sort of society where we tolerate those with different opinions on this issue)

2. I can’t see any law framed in such a way that the European Court of Human Rights will not quash it, and you have yet to discuss how you think Ireland can frame a law in such a way to force parents, even using physical force or imprisonment, to vaccinate their children in such a way that that law will not attract the interest of the European Court of Human Rights.

ShanePouch

Stark wrote: »

So you'd resent parents being forced to feed their children. Or forced to allow them blood transfusions. Or not being allowed to mutilate their children's genitals.

If you can point me to anywhere I have said any of these things in this thread, I'll swim the channel.

If you want to engage with what I have said, and discuss or argue, then I am happy to do so. However, if you want me to argue with you about things which you invent, then argument seems futile.

who the fug

I still do not understand why the state could not accommodate the wishes of the parent, and allow them a choice of vaccination; people are not rational (especially when it comes to their kids).

Gurgle

who the fug wrote: »

I still do not understand why the state could not accommodate the wishes of the parent, and allow them a choice of vaccination.

They do, and some idiot parents made the stupid choice. That's what this thread is about.

who the fug

Gurgle wrote: »

They do, and some idiot parents made the stupid choice. That's what this thread is about.

Thought in the UK ,they just replaced the old system with the MMR.

mimsy

Gurgle wrote: »

Monty Burnz wrote: »

if a few people don't get the immunisation, they are really only risking themselves.

This (stupid, ill-informed, irresponsible) decision isn't made by 2-day old babies.

My child attends a preschool with several children who have special needs. Some of these children these cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. I consider it irresponsible of any parent to allow their healthy child attend this preschool without an mmr vaccine. These parents are depending on everyone else to protect their children and are being incredibly selfish for purely ignorant and unfounded reasons.

The preschool is not allowed to refuse admission to their service because of not having vaccines. I think this is doing a disservice to a child who needs cooperation from all of society to ensure their safety.

whenever

ShanePouch wrote: »

In Ireland there has always been a suspicion of education and science, known as the invincible ignorance brigade. you can spot them quite easily because they usually tell you they "believe" in something or other or they "don't believe " in something or other.

For example, they might "believe" in homoeopathy, and not "believe" in vaccination. The invincible ignorance comes in because whatever evidence is available, they will hold their noses aloft and choose not to look at it, so convinced are they in their own invincible ignorance.

I'd also have to "believe" in homoeopathy because there is no evidence it works. I don't have to "believe" in paracetamol, because I know it works based on good evidence backed up by clinical trials. Likewise, I know vaccination works because of the plethora of evidence available, backed up by clinical trials.

Those who choose not to vaccinate themsleves, or their children, are at liberty to choose that route, but their decisions are flawed as we have seen by the results.

But is this liberty a liability to other children? The exposure of vaccinated children to potential carriers elevates their risk. This is to say nothing of vunerable children who may not be vaccinated for medical reasons. So should parents be at liberty to deny vaccination and yet have their children in school with those whose parents have had the good sense to protect?

Gurgle

ShanePouch wrote: »

In Ireland there has always been a suspicion of education and science

Not even remotely true.

The Celts were on a par with the Egyptians best astronomers back when they were building pyramids, Newgrange was built hundreds of years before the Giza pyramid. They just didn't have the equivalent 'natural resources' (i.e. millions of slaves) to build on that scale.

"Island of saints and scholars", it wasn't all about praying.

A fair whack of modern science was developed here, including the work of several nobel laureates.

Throw in a good batch of the great explorers, authors, poets, playwrights.

This notion of thick paddies stomping around in the mud while the world passes by is not particularly accurate. We had ~150 years of abject poverty, otherwise the island has been as modern as (almost) anywhere else for the last 5000 years.

ShanePouch

whenever wrote: »

But is this liberty a liability to other children? The exposure of vaccinated children to potential carriers elevates their risk. This is to say nothing of vunerable children who may not be vaccinated for medical reasons. So should parents be at liberty to deny vaccination and yet have their children in school with those whose parents have had the good sense to protect?

How are you proposing to force those parents who have their own objections to vaccinations to have their children vaccinated?

And how will whatever solution you propose be likely to be viewed by the ECHR ?

Lastly, do you really want to live in a society where parents are forced, by agents of the state, to be handed over to the authorities to be injected with substances those parents think are harmful, whatever the rights or wrongs about whether they are harmful or not? Certainly, i don't want to live in a society like that.

Stark

ShanePouch wrote: »

If you can point me to anywhere I have said any of these things in this thread, I'll swim the channel.

If you want to engage with what I have said, and discuss or argue, then I am happy to do so. However, if you want me to argue with you about things which you invent, then argument seems futile.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0112/transfusion.html

The needs of the child come before the ignorance of the parent.

ShanePouch

Stark wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0112/transfusion.html

The needs of the child come before the ignorance of the parent.

I note you don't say how you propose to get around the ECHR.
'

Akrasia

ShanePouch wrote: »

Dave! wrote: »

I'd be open to the idea of indirectly compelling parents to vaccinate, e.g. by schools requiring confirmation of vaccination before granting a child a place. I'm not sure that would be constitutional though.

Whatever about the constitution, I imagine the European Court of Human Rights might have, rightly, some objections.

What is it about modern Ireland where we want to bully everyone else around to our way of thinking, and where we no longer respect the rights of others to their own opinions, whether or not we agree with them.

The problem with this sort of thinking is that what happens then when it is you who have a strongly held view? I happen to agree with vaccination as I have said, but I also happen to believe in freedom and that includes the freedom to hold and express views with which I disagree.

i know how you feel. i miss polio too. why did the state interfere with my childs right to get polio!

Dave!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/27/infant-deaths-whooping-cough-epidemic

Five infant deaths signal serious UK whooping cough outbreak

Health experts are warning of a major outbreak of whooping cough: five infants have died so far this year, prompting doctors to consider a new round of vaccinations.

The Health Protection Agency said on Friday it was very concerned by figures which show 2,466 confirmed cases between January and June, six times the comparable figure for the previous big outbreak in 2008.

The government's vaccination committee is now considering recommending booster vaccinations for teenagers and pregnant women and has already recommended immunising healthcare workers who treat young children because infants are most at risk.

Mary Ramsay, the agency's head of immunisation, said: "We are working closely with the Department of Health's Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunisation to consider the most effective ways to tackle the ongoing outbreak. The committee is reviewing a number of options, including the introduction of a booster dose in teenagers and offering whooping cough vaccination to pregnant women.

"In the meantime we are actively reviewing our cases to see what interventions could have the quickest impact on the spread."

On average, in the last 10 years in England and Wales, 800 cases of whooping cough were reported, with more than 300 babies being admitted to hospital and four babies dying each year.

"Whooping cough can spread easily to close contacts such as household members," said Ramsay. "Vaccination is the most effective way to protect people from this infection and uptake of the vaccine in the UK is very good. In addition to this, parents should ensure their children are up to date with their vaccinations so that they are protected at the earliest opportunity.

"Whooping cough can be a very serious illness, especially in the very young. In older people it can be unpleasant, but does not usually lead to serious complications. Anyone showing signs and symptoms, which include severe coughing fits accompanied by the characteristic "whoop" sound in young children, but as a prolonged cough in older children and adults, should visit their GP."

Infants are routinely vaccinated against whooping cough at two, three and four months, with a booster three years later. Before vaccination became routinely available in 1957 large epidemics occurred every three to five years in the UK. These epidemics affected up to 150,000 people and contributed to about 300 deaths annually.

Doesn't seem to be any mention of whether those affected are vaccinated or not... Should we take it that the young ones are too young for shots?

force eleven

We all want the best for our children. The vaccination question seems like a no brainer, but when you look at the sheer amount of vaccines we put into children in the first two years of life, you realise how much trust we're putting in multi national pharma companies and our health care providers.

I completely understand parents who worry about this question. It is in no way a black and white issue.

Zombrex

force eleven wrote: »

We all want the best for our children. The vaccination question seems like a no brainer, but when you look at the sheer amount of vaccines we put into children in the first two years of life, you realise how much trust we're putting in multi national pharma companies and our health care providers.

I completely understand parents who worry about this question. It is in no way a black and white issue.

That is like saying the amount of food we give our children in the first two years of life you realize how much trust we put in the multi-national food companies and our food safety authorities.

We do put trust in these groups, but we also need to eat. Which is why these groups are very well regulated.

Oryx

Multinational food companies stitch us up all the time (safe may not mean good for us). Bad example for comparison imo.

Yes, kids should be vaccinated. But should it be obligatory? No. For me, that would mean removal of a fundamental right. We are nannied and bullied enough by the state. This would be the thin end of the wedge for the removal of other material rights. Euthanasia, anyone?

Zombrex

Oryx wrote: »

Bad example for comparison imo.

Not really, when was the last time you heard of someone refusing to feed their children.

Oryx

Zombrex wrote: »

Not really, when was the last time you heard of someone refusing to feed their children.

When was the last time you heard of a government forcing people to feed their children a particular food?

We do put too much trust in what we are told in advertising and otherwise by vested interests. Thats part of the reason why people are running scared from vaccination. Lots of conflicting information and not enough confident reassurance from the medical professionals. (Who get too much wrong, so they are not trusted in what they say).

I'm not saying its right, I'm saying its what is happening. People do not know what to believe, so they take the path of least resistance, and do nothing.

Zombrex

Oryx wrote: »

When was the last time you heard of a government forcing people to feed their children a particular food?

That isn't the point. We trust the food safety standards in a country like this almost without thinking about it. When was the last time you bought a chocolate bar and though "Umm, I wonder if this contrains arsenic"

Oryx wrote: »

We do put too much trust in what we are told in advertising and otherwise by vested interests. Thats part of the reason why people are running scared from vaccination. Lots of conflicting information and not enough confident reassurance from the medical professionals. (Who get too much wrong, so they are not trusted in what they say).

Sorry where is the "conflicting information"? As far as I can tell you have the medical establishment saying one thing and a bunch of crazies trying to sell alternative medicine remedies saying another. That is hardly a debate worthy of serious concern if you are a parent.

So yes I blame the parents for this for being silly, you certainly cannot blame the medical community or "Big Pharma"