Australian parenting - No Jab, no play and no rebate

Avenged7Fold · 13 Mar 2017 at 12:10

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-39251585

Unvaccinated children would be banned from childcare centres and preschools under an Australian government plan.

Some Australian states already have "no jab, no play" laws, but PM Malcolm Turnbull is calling for nationwide legislation.

"If a parent says, 'I'm not going to vaccinate my child,' they are not simply putting their child at risk, they are putting everybody else's children at risk too."

Vaccinating children is not a legal requirement in Australia, but failing to do so makes parents ineligible for childcare rebates.

Please to see the call for legislation on vaccines for children.

The internet age has allowed the spread of misinformation on vaccines which has led to a decline in vaccinations in certain countries. It is dangerous as the effects of just 5-10% of vaccinated people can be easily seen. We have enjoyed the benefits of having great numbers of our population vaccinated and it has pretty much led to the eradication of some of the biggest killers in the west. With air travel being affordable by many, a drop in immunisation can quickly lead to a disease being re-introduced to countries who have not seen it for decades.

I personally think immunisation of children should be required by law, with multiple medical bodies scrutinising the compulsory immunisations but Australians method of threatening peoples childcare rebates puts a financial weight into the decision while still leaving the decision in the hands of the parents.

VincentHanna · 13 Mar 2017 at 12:14

Avenged7Fold said:
The internet age has allowed the spread of misinformation on vaccines which has led to a decline in vaccinations in certain countries. It is dangerous as the effects of just 5-10% of vaccinated people.

Not just vaccines.

Misinformation is everywhere now

enigma27 · 13 Mar 2017 at 12:38

Avenged7Fold said:
I personally think immunisation of children should be required by law, with multiple medical bodies scrutinising the compulsory immunisations but Australians method of threatening peoples childcare rebates puts a financial weight into the decision while still leaving the decision in the hands of the parents.

Are you a father?

As much as I am for immunization I certainly would not want the government to have power over what gets jabbed into my son or daughter.

It should be the choice of the parent.. if they decide not to then they understand the consequences.

Our kids seem to becoming more a possession than our flesh and blood nowadays.

cheesyboy · 13 Mar 2017 at 12:49

It's not the internet age that does it: it's the lack of tangible harm - people grow complacent.

The same thing happened in the 1800s, after Jenner's smallpox vaccine practically eradicated the disease - only for the anti-vac movement to drive down population immunity to the extent that epidemics returned. The anti-vac movement lost popularity again.

enigma27 said:
Are you a father?

As much as I am for immunization I certainly would not want the government to have power over what gets jabbed into my son or daughter.

It should be the choice of the parent.. if they decide not to then they understand the consequences.

Our kids seem to becoming more a possession than our flesh and blood nowadays.

Yes and no.

The trouble is, your choice for your child potentially has serious externalities which directly affect the lives of other people's children. Once population immunity drops to a certain level, the diseases are able to gain a foothold. This risks not only those who opted against vaccination, but those who took the vaccines but whose bodies failed to build up resistance, as well as those whose immune systems are compromised through other illness or treatments (chemo etc), and infants who are too young to be vaccinated.

Minstadave · 13 Mar 2017 at 12:52

enigma27 said:
Are you a father?

As much as I am for immunization I certainly would not want the government to have power over what gets jabbed into my son or daughter.

It should be the choice of the parent.. if they decide not to then they understand the consequences.

Our kids seem to becoming more a possession than our flesh and blood nowadays.

Unfortunately parents can be utterly stupid.

You're not allowed to beat your kid up, you're not allowed to neglect them, you have a duty to keep them safe and fed but you are allowed to leave them vulnerable to diseases that are completely preventable.

Not on.

Edrof · 13 Mar 2017 at 12:57

Absolutely no way should the government have the power to legally enforce vaccinations, but I completely support making life far more difficult for those that don't vaccinate their children.

Dis86 · 13 Mar 2017 at 12:59

Minstadave said:
Unfortunately parents can be utterly stupid.

You're not allowed to beat your kid up, you're not allowed to neglect them but you are allowed to leave them vulnerable to diseases that are completely preventable.

Not on.

So true. It's amazing how many people suddenly act utterly irrational when it comes to their kids. It's weird!

Glaucus · 13 Mar 2017 at 13:01

enigma27 said:
Are you a father?

As much as I am for immunization I certainly would not want the government to have power over what gets jabbed into my son or daughter.

It should be the choice of the parent.. if they decide not to then they understand the consequences.

Our kids seem to becoming more a possession than our flesh and blood nowadays.

It absolutely should not be the choice of the parent. That mantra has led to Millon's of children being failed by idiot parents. People already accept that children have to be educated, looked after etc. And that should be taken further. It is not right some parents can mess up their duties so far, it messes up the child's life for life.

enigma27 · 13 Mar 2017 at 13:08

Nope its about educating the parents properly not handing over the power to the government.

Edrof · 13 Mar 2017 at 13:10

Glaucus said:
It absolutely should not be the choice of the parent. That mantra has led to Millon's of children being failed by idiot parents. People already accept that children have to be educated, looked after etc. And that should be taken further. It is not right some parents can mess up their duties so far, it messes up the child's life for life.

I completely agree about the stupidity of some people, but if government control over our bodies is allowed what happens when a government doesn't have its citizens best interests at heart? Any student of history will tell you that peace and benevolent government is a rare thing. Education of parents, and incentives (or the removal of incentives) is a far more sensible compromise.

Glaucus · 13 Mar 2017 at 13:16

Edrof said:
I completely agree about the stupidity of some people, but if government control over our bodies is allowed what happens when a government doesn't have its citizens best interests at heart? Any student of history will tell you that peace and benevolent government is a rare thing. Education of parents, and incentives (or the removal of incentives) is a far more sensible compromise.

Governments already have lots of control over your body and life in generally and its not the total scare stories some people make out.

All though removing moneys and/or educating, changes a lot of peoples minds. You end up with a fair number of children not only not getting the medical treatment they need, they also now lacking the money as well.
Its no differentimo yo the recent court cases of parents being done for using homeopathy on kids and them dying due to not having normal medical treatment. So courts and law already decide on reasonable medical treatment on children and can and do over ride parents wishes.

Avenged7Fold · 13 Mar 2017 at 13:21

enigma27 said:
Are you a father?

As much as I am for immunization I certainly would not want the government to have power over what gets jabbed into my son or daughter.

It should be the choice of the parent.. if they decide not to then they understand the consequences.

Our kids seem to becoming more a possession than our flesh and blood nowadays.

I am not a father and am the better for it to judge it from a neutral point of view.

Your kids are only claimed as possession by you as a parent, not the government. You should have the decision because what? Because they are YOUR kids and therefore it is YOUR right to make an uninformed decision rather than leave it to a number of proven medical bodies which are open to scrutiny by others in the field?

Who do you think are the most sensible people to make the decision for immunisation for the well being of the children (both the child and other peoples children):

The parents or the government - considering also that the vaccines are approved by multiple medical bodies independent from the government, as well as pier reviewed in the making.

The government has nothing to gain from it other than lowering costs on the NHS, which is a result of something we all want; healthier people.

I dont think it should be down to the parents to decide because the pre-requisite of becoming a parent has nothing to do with how qualified you are to make a medical decision for your child or the children of others.

Edrof said:
I completely agree about the stupidity of some people, but if government control over our bodies is allowed what happens when a government doesn't have its citizens best interests at heart? Any student of history will tell you that peace and benevolent government is a rare thing. Education of parents, and incentives (or the removal of incentives) is a far more sensible compromise.

While i agree removal of incentives is a more sensible compromise, i only do so because a forced immunisation policy would probably have adverse effects for the cause of herd immunisation when first introduced and it would require a change in society's view on the relationship between a parent and a child to enforce such a hard-line approach. If we look at the view people have taken with physical discipline being outlawed but only including the argument of 'My kids, my right!' as the other arguments of effectiveness of the law/solution are irrelevant with a vaccine argument.

enigma27 · 13 Mar 2017 at 14:17

Avenged7Fold said:
Your kids are only claimed as possession by you as a parent, not the government. You should have the decision because what? Because they are YOUR kids and therefore it is YOUR right to make an uninformed decision rather than leave it to a number of proven medical bodies which are open to scrutiny by others in the field?

Unless I am abusing the child or neglecting them then yes it is my right as the creator of that human being to decide on there welfare.

Problem with people in a 'neutral position' is you cant imagine what it is like until you experience it. I was just like you before I had kids, then everything changed.

Listen I am not disagreeing to an extent and i fully believe in vaccinations being a good thing, but where do you draw the line with the controls being taken away from the parent? We already have education, holidays etc.. what next? forcing mothers to legally breast feed kids??

To me sounds more like punish everyone for the insanity of a minority of people who make bad decisions based on media scaremongering.

Avenged7Fold · 13 Mar 2017 at 14:30

I would say its easier to draw the line in some cases more than others.

Not vaccinating a child is negligence in the eyes of medical professionals. The discussion is not about what governments will yearn to have control over next but whether not vaccinating a child can be described as negligence. I most certainly think it does.

If everyone else is vaccinated , then one un-vaccinated child is is of little risk but have 10% of children un-vaccinated and the risk is most certainly significant.

I see this as no different to seat-belt laws, except that it puts the other 'drivers and passengers' at risk.

Dis86 · 13 Mar 2017 at 14:42

enigma27 said:
Unless I am abusing the child or neglecting them

Problem with people in a 'neutral position' is you cant imagine what it is like until you experience it. I was just like you before I had kids, then everything changed.

By not giving them immunisations it could be deemed as neglect or abuse.
Those neglecting or abusing kids rarely think they are doing it.

So...because someone doesn't have something they're not allowed to think about it?

Stephen Hawking hasn't been in a black hole.

The Pope hasn't met Jesus.

I've designed subsea hardware that will sit 5000m under the surface of the sea, I've not been down there.

A neutral party doesn't have their mind constricted by irrational emotion. They're the best people to be thinking about something.

Avenged7Fold · 13 Mar 2017 at 14:43

'I use to think like you, then i became biased' :cool:

enigma27 · 13 Mar 2017 at 15:19

Dis86 said:
By not giving them immunisations it could be deemed as neglect or abuse.
Those neglecting or abusing kids rarely think they are doing it.

So...because someone doesn't have something they're not allowed to think about it?

Not when they don't have kids and don't know how much silly stuff is forced on parents no. I am not neglecting my kids and they get all of the vaccinations and even some they don't get free (Like chicken pox)

All of the examples you posted are around ideas and experts in their field through years of learning and understanding.. being a father is about emotion and being a protector.

As i have said numerous times I am not against these things but I am against handing over decision on children to government bodies simply based on a few nut jobs who think were all being controlled by aliens..

Good luck getting it to hold up anyhow. no different to the fines imposed on parents who take there kids out of term time for holidays.. they tried to fine a father not so long ago and he won..

Avenged7Fold said:
'I use to think like you, then i became biased'

Okey daddio

Avenged7Fold · 13 Mar 2017 at 15:25

So your view on seat belts being mandatory and a legal obligation of the parent?

Just the government clawing for more control over your ~~possessions~~ kids?

StriderX · 13 Mar 2017 at 15:27

No need to have public education or the NHS then, parents should fund that right?

FortuitousFluke · 13 Mar 2017 at 15:27

enigma27 said:
Good luck getting it to hold up anyhow. no different to the fines imposed on parents who take there kids out of term time for holidays.. they tried to fine a father not so long ago and he won..

The father won because the wording of the law was ambiguous. There's no ambiguity in a law mandating children receive a defined list of vaccinations.