Judge Orders Girl Vaccinated - Against Mom's Wishes

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Link

Thoughts on this? I think it was the right choice for the judge to make. The mother in this case clearly has the emotional maturity and scientific knowledge of a hamster. Plus, on general principles, it's about damn time somebody stood up to those anti-vaccine nutbars. (IMHO, there should be absolutely no exemption for vaccines - not anywhere, not any reason. Nobody should ever have the right not to be vaccinated.)

 

[Amaris]

Link

Thoughts on this? I think it was the right choice for the judge to make. The mother in this case clearly has the emotional maturity and scientific knowledge of a hamster. Plus, on general principles, it's about damn time somebody stood up to those anti-vaccine nutbars. (IMHO, there should be absolutely no exemption for vaccines - not anywhere, not any reason. Nobody should ever have the right not to be vaccinated.)

As long as the child was tested to make certain the vaccine wouldn't cause adverse reaction (extremely rare, but important to test anyway), I'm fine with this. The only reason polio, whooping cough, measles, rubella, and other diseases aren't still killing vast swathes of children, is because of herd immunity via vaccination.

 

[SeerSGB]

Link

Thoughts on this? I think it was the right choice for the judge to make. The mother in this case clearly has the emotional maturity and scientific knowledge of a hamster. Plus, on general principles, it's about damn time somebody stood up to those anti-vaccine nutbars. (IMHO, there should be absolutely no exemption for vaccines - not anywhere, not any reason. Nobody should ever have the right not to be vaccinated.)

As long as the child was tested to make certain the vaccine wouldn't cause adverse reaction (extremely rare, but important to test anyway), I'm fine with this. The only reason polio, whooping cough, measles, rubella, and other diseases aren't still killing vast swathes of children, is because of herd immunity via vaccination.

This can't be stressed enough. Yes, vaccinations are critical, but as a parent of child that has as allergy to certain vaccines and nearly had to be hospitalized over the flu vaccine. This can't be stressed enough: yes, vaccinate your kids, but get them tested first. The anti-vaxxers are loons, but you've gotta be safe, ask questions, and ask to have your child tested cause vaccines aren't once size fits all either.

My mother can't take any vaccine. Tons of blood work, and there's something screwy with her immune system that causes a dangerous reaction to vaccines. Nearly killed her as a child, and if she ends up in the hospital it's a PIA to try to get the doctors to understand that "yes, it'll be that bad".

 

[Mudd]

Well, it reads as if the conflict here was between the wishes of parents who share legal responsibility for the child. So while it's a reasonable ruling it's also not breaking any ground or setting any precedent where state's interest versus that of the parents is concerned. The judge just supported one parent over the other.

If I'm mistaken about that, I hope Alidar Jarok or someone similarly well-informed will correct me.

If this were a case of the judge overruling both parents I'd imagine civil rights lawyers would be falling over themselves to get involved. I'd definitely side with the parents in that kind of a case, despite my personally favoring vaccination and thinking it's in the interest of the community.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If this were a case of the judge overruling both parents I'd imagine civil rights lawyers would be falling over themselves to get involved. I'd definitely side with the parents in that kind of a case

Only if there are legitimate medical reasons involved (such as what SeerSGB described), I would hope. You wouldn't side with the looney anti-vaxx crowd, would you?

@SeerSGB, I must apologize, I didn't give enough consideration to those who are actually allergic to vaccines or otherwise can't take them. People like that should be allowed leeway, of course. I didn't mean to sound so heartless. It's just so easy to react instinctively against the anti-vaxx nutbars, I tend to jump to conclusions...

 

[MacLeod]

There are some people that can't be immunised for various reasons, these people rely on the herd immunity, if herd immunity falls below a certain level risk of catching a disease is increased.

 

[SeerSGB]

If this were a case of the judge overruling both parents I'd imagine civil rights lawyers would be falling over themselves to get involved. I'd definitely side with the parents in that kind of a case

Only if there are legitimate medical reasons involved (such as what SeerSGB described), I would hope. You wouldn't side with the looney anti-vaxx crowd, would you?

@SeerSGB, I must apologize, I didn't give enough consideration to those who are actually allergic to vaccines or otherwise can't take them. People like that should be allowed leeway, of course. I didn't mean to sound so heartless. It's just so easy to react instinctively against the anti-vaxx nutbars, I tend to jump to conclusions...

No need. Sort of sore point with my youngest and my mother. Doctors seem to default to vaccine = 100% safe. And when you have to argue every few months that they're not safe for everyone, that you don't think risking you kids life is a "Well, try it and see" type of deal. You get a bit touchy


http://www.trekbbs.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

 

[Amaris]

Link

Thoughts on this? I think it was the right choice for the judge to make. The mother in this case clearly has the emotional maturity and scientific knowledge of a hamster. Plus, on general principles, it's about damn time somebody stood up to those anti-vaccine nutbars. (IMHO, there should be absolutely no exemption for vaccines - not anywhere, not any reason. Nobody should ever have the right not to be vaccinated.)

As long as the child was tested to make certain the vaccine wouldn't cause adverse reaction (extremely rare, but important to test anyway), I'm fine with this. The only reason polio, whooping cough, measles, rubella, and other diseases aren't still killing vast swathes of children, is because of herd immunity via vaccination.

This can't be stressed enough. Yes, vaccinations are critical, but as a parent of child that has as allergy to certain vaccines and nearly had to be hospitalized over the flu vaccine. This can't be stressed enough: yes, vaccinate your kids, but get them tested first. The anti-vaxxers are loons, but you've gotta be safe, ask questions, and ask to have your child tested cause vaccines aren't once size fits all either.

My mother can't take any vaccine. Tons of blood work, and there's something screwy with her immune system that causes a dangerous reaction to vaccines. Nearly killed her as a child, and if she ends up in the hospital it's a PIA to try to get the doctors to understand that "yes, it'll be that bad".

Exactly. I'm all for having everyone vaccinated, but only if it's not going to kill them or make them extremely ill in the process. Not vaccinating them wouldn't be an issue as long as everyone else is immunized, as that will protect those people as well.

I do get Dennis' point of view, because even though I'm fine with this decision, the idea that everyone is forced to be vaccinated doesn't sit well with me on the whole. The thing is, though, it's a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation. We've reached the point where people have decided that their opinion trumps scientific necessity. Previous generations never had to worry about this issue, because they understood that it was a necessity, something we had to do in order to protect the herd.

Now, though, Mrs. Mom's unresearched, unscientific, gut feeling opinion has become preferable to the scientific consensus which says these diseases will return if we stop taking the vaccine. Now these diseases are starting to return, and people still aren't listening to the scientific community, so what do you do?

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Anybody who refuses vaccinations is putting other people's lives in danger, not just their own.

It's one thing if this person has an individual condition which makes vaccines dangerous to them. In those cases there is a proven medical reason not to administer vaccines. But there is simply absolutely no good reason to think vaccines cause autism or any of those other things screamed about by ignorant celebrities on daytime talk shows. If you have no specific valid reason not to give your child a vaccine, they catch a disease, and then somebody with a compromised immune system catches it from them and dies from it, it should be considered negligent manslaughter.

 

[Mudd]

If this were a case of the judge overruling both parents I'd imagine civil rights lawyers would be falling over themselves to get involved. I'd definitely side with the parents in that kind of a case

Only if there are legitimate medical reasons involved (such as what SeerSGB described), I would hope. You wouldn't side with the looney anti-vaxx crowd, would you?

I don't choose sides on this sort of thing - nor have I ever beaten my wife, thanks. I believe in the science and the importance of vaccination. Everyone for whom I have been responsible has had appropriate vaccinations; my attitude toward doctors and medical treatment in general is pretty mainstream and conventional.

I also think individual rights to make decisions about medical treatment for themselves or those they're responsible for are pretty fundamental and should be be given an awful lot of weight in legal proceedings. Under other circumstances, you know, progressives are often reticent about granting government direct authority over the bodies and medical treatment of citizens.

My initial introduction to thinking about this was almost thirty-five years ago, watching the unfolding story here locally of a Polish immigrant who was refusing to have her kids vaccinated in order to attend public school. Rather than having them vaccinated she was keeping them out of school.

She wasn't making a scientific argument at all. She was simply a death camp survivor who was unpersuaded that one should be required to have one's healthy children subjected to a medical procedure on the authority of the State.

 

[MacLeod]

And one can certainly understand her view given her experiances, and it would be fair to safe that immunisation reduces risks.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If this were a case of the judge overruling both parents I'd imagine civil rights lawyers would be falling over themselves to get involved. I'd definitely side with the parents in that kind of a case

Only if there are legitimate medical reasons involved (such as what SeerSGB described), I would hope. You wouldn't side with the looney anti-vaxx crowd, would you?

I don't choose sides on this sort of thing

Everyone must choose a side. Especially in situations like this, when everyone's health is in danger. It's not as if it's only the individual in question who's in danger; other people are at risk. Unvaccinated children are making OTHER people sick. So you will understand why the state would take an interest in this sort of thing.

I believe in the science and the importance of vaccination. Everyone for whom I have been responsible has had appropriate vaccinations; my attitude toward doctors and medical treatment in general is pretty mainstream and conventional.

A quite sensible attitude to have, of course.

I also think individual rights to make decisions about medical treatment for themselves or those they're responsible for are pretty fundamental and should be be given an awful lot of weight in legal proceedings.

Even when the individual in question is obviously wrong, as in this example?

 

[Trekker4747]

The mother had plenty of arguments as to why her 10-year-old daughter should not receive the measles vaccine — ranging from “most diseases today are very rare” to “unmistakable links” between vaccines and severe reactions.

Yes, they're rare because PEOPLE GET VACCINATED!!!!

Herd Immunity. Learn it!

 

[{ Emilia }]

I also think individual rights to make decisions about medical treatment for themselves or those they're responsible for are pretty fundamental and should be be given an awful lot of weight in legal proceedings.

The problem is that their decisions are affecting others. An asshole who decides not to vaccinate their kids is turning those kids into a potential threat to other people who can't vaccinate for very valid reasons (people allergic to the vaccine or infants who are just too young for some vaccines).

I don't mind if people choose to make stupid decisions but only if they don't pose a threat to others. The reason we impose speed limits or ban drunk driving isn't to protect you from doing something stupid. It's to protect others from your stupidity. (general "you", I'm not actually talking about Dennis for a change. )
I also think that up to a certain point kids need to be protected from parents whose decisions pose a threat to their health.

 

[Mudd]

And one can certainly understand her view given her experiences, and it would be fair to say that immunization reduces risks.

Both true.

I also think individual rights to make decisions about medical treatment for themselves or those they're responsible for are pretty fundamental and should be be given an awful lot of weight in legal proceedings.

Even when the individual in question is obviously wrong, as in this example?

Sorry, still not beating my wife.

Communities certainly have the right, in the interests of their members, to sanction behavior or negligence that they believe is dangerous. Not permitting unvaccinated children to attend school, for example, or requiring vaccination as a precondition to employment...you can make your own list.

What I'm not sanguine about is the proposition - and so far, largely only that, in my country - that the State should have the authority to compel an otherwise healthy individual to submit to a medical treatment.

"Oh, but when the facts/science are absolutely clear..." betrays a naive confidence in how political authority is exercised and how people in communities make decisions about complex issues. What happens when the facts aren't absolutely clear but a whole lot of people are frightened and just think they understand the problem? Have you noticed what kind of brilliant scientists currently hold the majority in both houses of Congress? Do you know who's going to be the next President, and the next, and the next? Do you imagine that the CDC is headed up by Jor-El of Krypton?

Given the recent bouts of incipient hysteria in this country about how to deal with international travelers vis-a-vis the Ebola outbreak in West Africa or a lot of the talk that went on about how to address the AIDS crisis and deal with the infected in this country in the 1980s, I think we're doing well to just keep this particular stick out of the hands of the government for now.

BTW, you could have as easily titled the thread "Judge rules in father's favor in vaccination dispute," which would have been less misleading. It doesn't look as if the judge has ordered vaccination as such.

 

[farmkid]

If this were a case of the judge overruling both parents I'd imagine civil rights lawyers would be falling over themselves to get involved. I'd definitely side with the parents in that kind of a case

Only if there are legitimate medical reasons involved (such as what SeerSGB described), I would hope. You wouldn't side with the looney anti-vaxx crowd, would you?

I don't choose sides on this sort of thing - nor have I ever beaten my wife, thanks. I believe in the science and the importance of vaccination. Everyone for whom I have been responsible has had appropriate vaccinations; my attitude toward doctors and medical treatment in general is pretty mainstream and conventional.

I also think individual rights to make decisions about medical treatment for themselves or those they're responsible for are pretty fundamental and should be be given an awful lot of weight in legal proceedings. Under other circumstances, you know, progressives are often reticent about granting government direct authority over the bodies and medical treatment of citizens.

My initial introduction to thinking about this was almost thirty-five years ago, watching the unfolding story here locally of a Polish immigrant who was refusing to have her kids vaccinated in order to attend public school. Rather than having them vaccinated she was keeping them out of school.

She wasn't making a scientific argument at all. She was simply a death camp survivor who was unpersuaded that one should be required to have one's healthy children subjected to a medical procedure on the authority of the State.

I have to agree with you, Dennis. While I'm a firm believer in vaccination, I also feel that personal liberty is vitally important and should be protected as much as possible. I have a hard time supporting vaccination programs such as that proposed by Mr. Laser Beam.

I think I've come up with a way to reconcile the two ideas. Because we are all part of society, we all have to take on the responsibility of protecting society as much as we can. That's part of the reason why we get vaccines and why we mandate vaccination in many cases. So, how about if we allow people to choose not to vaccinate their children, but don't give them a pass on protecting society as a whole? We do that by requiring those who choose not to be vaccinated to be quarantined whenever there is a case of the disease for which they refused vaccination in their area. So, if I don't give my kids the MMR vaccine (my kids are fully vaccinated, BTW), and there is a case of measles in my town, I have to quarantine my family until the danger is passed. People get their liberty to do as they wish, but they are not absolved of their responsibility to society as the current system does.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

how about if we allow people to choose not to vaccinate their children, but don't give them a pass on protecting society as a whole? We do that by requiring those who choose not to be vaccinated to be quarantined whenever there is a case of the disease for which they refused vaccination in their area. So, if I don't give my kids the MMR vaccine (my kids are fully vaccinated, BTW), and there is a case of measles in my town, I have to quarantine my family until the danger is passed. People get their liberty to do as they wish, but they are not absolved of their responsibility to society as the current system does.

I would not have a problem with that.

Not sure how I feel about the term 'quarantine' as such, but I definitely feel that kids who are not vaccinated should not be allowed to attend school. Unvaccinated children are a danger to public health.

 

[Mudd]

...I'm not actually talking about Dennis for a change.

That is remarkable. I was beginning to think I might need a court ordered stay away.

 

[MacLeod]

Only if there are legitimate medical reasons involved (such as what SeerSGB described), I would hope. You wouldn't side with the looney anti-vaxx crowd, would you?

I don't choose sides on this sort of thing - nor have I ever beaten my wife, thanks. I believe in the science and the importance of vaccination. Everyone for whom I have been responsible has had appropriate vaccinations; my attitude toward doctors and medical treatment in general is pretty mainstream and conventional.

I also think individual rights to make decisions about medical treatment for themselves or those they're responsible for are pretty fundamental and should be be given an awful lot of weight in legal proceedings. Under other circumstances, you know, progressives are often reticent about granting government direct authority over the bodies and medical treatment of citizens.

My initial introduction to thinking about this was almost thirty-five years ago, watching the unfolding story here locally of a Polish immigrant who was refusing to have her kids vaccinated in order to attend public school. Rather than having them vaccinated she was keeping them out of school.

She wasn't making a scientific argument at all. She was simply a death camp survivor who was unpersuaded that one should be required to have one's healthy children subjected to a medical procedure on the authority of the State.

I have to agree with you, Dennis. While I'm a firm believer in vaccination, I also feel that personal liberty is vitally important and should be protected as much as possible. I have a hard time supporting vaccination programs such as that proposed by Mr. Laser Beam.

I think I've come up with a way to reconcile the two ideas. Because we are all part of society, we all have to take on the responsibility of protecting society as much as we can. That's part of the reason why we get vaccines and why we mandate vaccination in many cases. So, how about if we allow people to choose not to vaccinate their children, but don't give them a pass on protecting society as a whole? We do that by requiring those who choose not to be vaccinated to be quarantined whenever there is a case of the disease for which they refused vaccination in their area. So, if I don't give my kids the MMR vaccine (my kids are fully vaccinated, BTW), and there is a case of measles in my town, I have to quarantine my family until the danger is passed. People get their liberty to do as they wish, but they are not absolved of their responsibility to society as the current system does.

There is just one minor problem with that approach. One has to factor into account things such as Incubation period you may show no outward sign of the disease but you might be in the stage when you can infect other people.

 

[Mary Ann]

I also think individual rights to make decisions about medical treatment for themselves or those they're responsible for are pretty fundamental and should be be given an awful lot of weight in legal proceedings.

The problem is that their decisions are affecting others. An asshole who decides not to vaccinate their kids is turning those kids into a potential threat to other people who can't vaccinate for very valid reasons (people allergic to the vaccine or infants who are just too young for some vaccines).

I don't mind if people choose to make stupid decisions but only if they don't pose a threat to others. The reason we impose speed limits or ban drunk driving isn't to protect you from doing something stupid. It's to protect others from your stupidity. (general "you", I'm not actually talking about Dennis for a change. )
I also think that up to a certain point kids need to be protected from parents whose decisions pose a threat to their health.

This. Herd immunity is vital for the protection of those cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. By refusing to vaccinate your kids for batshit insane reasons you not only put your own life at risk but those of others, and that is unacceptable.