Judge Orders Girl Vaccinated - Against Mom's Wishes

Well, except that's not what apparently happened here. The parents had a difference of opinion. The judge sided with one parent's concerns and ordered the other parent to comply. This happens every day on all kinds of issues where child custody is concerned.

So, neither a victory for the forces of Light or Darkness; just divorce law.

 

Complicated issue. As this thread illustrates, there are at least dozen viable justifications to each side of this issue. I'm almost always in favor of the rights of parents, but there are certain issues for which public health and safety must take precedence. This question has come up time and again over the last decade.

 

It's not a complicated issue, Vaccination in most cases protects not just the person being vaccinated it protects those who can't be vaccinated for whatever reason, with minimal risk to the person being vaccinated. And as you point out sometimes the good of the whole must come before the good of the individual.

Would parents who choose not to vaccinate their children and the worse happens the child dies due to a preventable disease would they still hold to being against vaccinations or would they change their mind?

 

Whether vaccination is a good thing to do is not a complicated issue. Of course it is. People who think otherwise are misinformed.

Under what circumstances people can be required to do so, and whether they ever may be compelled (and by whom), is fraught and complicated.

 

You've absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

--Sran

 

Yes, a religion. Science tells us how things like gravity and momentum work. So we don't have to wear seatbelts or such things because of science but because of FAITH!

Wait... what?

 

So, on the flip side of this kind of issue--that is, the government stepping in where parents disagree over particular medical procedures--a mother is risking jail time to keep her 4-year-old son from being circumcised. His father is demanding it done; she is refusing, and there is no medical need for him to be circumcised.

The same reasoning that allows a court to force a child to be vaccinated also allows this. We may see a huge qualitative difference between the procedures in question, but does the law? Both are regarded as optional and generally harmless to the individual undergoing the procedure.

 

The courts are not forcing anyone to undergo medical procedures, in either case. The court in this case is requiring a parent to abide by a legal agreement entered into with the other parent.

If these cases really involved attempts by the government to force children to undergo elective medical procedures/treatments a whole different set of legal issues would be in play.

 

Because of vaccinations, you are alive much longer to have auto-immune issues.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuLQ2GDVOHA[/yt]

This pretty much says it all.

 

I tried getting out of TB vaccinations in high school. As a 13 year-old, having needles stuck in my arm was rather unappealing, so I neglected to mention about it to parents.

Which worked, until they eventually found out about the vaccinations from talking to someone else's parents. They were rather annoyed, so I ended up having to get it the following year.

 

Oh, I hate getting stuck with needles. Still, at my age, I believe I've had four vaccinations in the last year - a tetanus booster, flu, pneumonia and shingles.

 

And not only that, others are alive much longer because of your vaccination.

That's the crux of the whole thing, really. Unvaccinated kids are dangerous to others. They can make others sick and even dead. That's why the government must take an interest in this.

Circumcision, for example, is different, because it affects no one else other than the person being circ'ed (or not). That's why it isn't important, but vaccination is.

 

Is TB that common in England? I was under the impression that the BCG vaccine wasn't widely used except in places where TB was a problem.

--Sran

 

I'm not sure how common it is/was, but back in the 80s, every one in my school (Northern England) had the test for it. In the end, I apparently didn't need the vaccine.

 

Today, virtually everyone is tested in the United States, but I'm not aware of anyone who's received the vaccine. Individuals with either suspected TB or recent exposure receive nine months of prophylaxis with isoniazid (INH).

--Sran

 

Apropos of nothing, but here are some nice Skeptic cartoons
http://bornagainpagan.com/cartoons/076-agnostic-cartoons.html

 

California passed a law yesterday exemplifying what can be done by the state to encourage vaccination:

Link

Basically, it eliminates a previously-existing "personal belief" exemption from vaccination for children attending public schools. Parents who choose not to have their kids vaccinated can home school or, presumably, send them to a private school willing to accept uninoculated students (if such exist).

 

Perhaps it isn't a problem because people receive the vaccine for it.

I remember that as well and I did need the vaccine