Heavy fines for those that refuse vaccination in Germany

[Avenged7Fold]

Because the medical profession can never make a mistake (such as Thalidomide, Primodos, Epilim and no doubt a large number of other drugs)? No, it should be a parents decision based on advice from the medical profession, not mandated by the government.

Why should it be the parents to make a decision? It is the child who will be ultimately affected. What about the cases where parents refused real medical treatments in favour for bogus new aged crap like homeopathy, is that their decision?

Surely elected officials referring to a body of peer reviewed medical professionals are far less likely to misstep than a parent that can choose the side of a lone nut medical professional.

These studies are scrutinised by the rest of the medical community, whereas a parent can just simply choose one that has no basis but paranoia.

 

[Thekwango]

Because the medical profession can never make a mistake (such as Thalidomide, Primodos, Epilim and no doubt a large number of other drugs)? No, it should be a parents decision based on advice from the medical profession, not mandated by the government.

Fair point, of course mistakes can be made. However imagine if a large number of parents decided, 'nope the medical profession have made mistakes in the past, not taking their advice' and decided against immunisations. Surely we'd be knees deep in epidemics?

I'm not saying you're wrong in your view I'm just wondering what happens if a large number of people are allowed to not follow medical advice.

 

[StriderX]

I think the UK should do the following, "No public entity will provide for an vaccinated child or they're parents until they get vaccinated."

No NHS benefit, no work benefits, no representation in a court of law, no schooling. Nothing. Any workplace employing these parents will be subject to infinite fines. etc etc

 

[Hades]

Why should it be the parents to make a decision? It is the child who will be ultimately affected. What about the cases where parents refused real medical treatments in favour for bogus new aged crap like homeopathy, is that their decision?

Surely elected officials referring to a body of peer reviewed medical professionals are far less likely to misstep than a parent that can choose the side of a lone nut medical professional.

These studies are scrutinised by the rest of the medical community, whereas a parent can just simply choose one that has no basis but paranoia.

Because they are the biological parents of that child. I have a very low opinion of elected officials nowadays (Trump, anyone?) and am constantly amazed how much freedom of choice many people are willing to give up to governments and other organisations.

 

[Thekwango]

Surely elected officials referring to a body of peer reviewed medical professionals are far less likely to misstep than a parent that can choose the side of a lone nut medical professional - or their hemp skirt wearing, living in a wigwam at the bottom of a garden friend of a friend on Facebook

I jest but I see this on dipstickbook on an almost daily basis - people posting links about the dangers or medicine. Usually because their friends friend twice removed swears their child grew a 3rd leg as a result of the TB jab!

 

[c1tro]

I don't have any problem with parents refusing to immunise their children as long as it doesn't break the law. If vaccination becomes compulsory, they can go and live in another country.

 

[adolf hamster]

Because they are the biological parents of that child. I have a very low opinion of elected officials nowadays (Trump, anyone?) and am constantly amazed how much freedom of choice many people are willing to give up to governments and other organisations.

being a "biological parent" really amounts to diddly squat though.

this isn't a contentious issue, the benefits of vaccinations are historically proven, or did the noticable lack of things like smallpox et al in modern society just pass everybody by?

 

[Hades]

being a "biological parent" really amounts to diddly squat though.

this isn't a contentious issue, the benefits of vaccinations are historically proven, or did the noticable lack of things like smallpox et al in modern society just pass everybody by?

Of course it's a contentious issue. Vaccination is not the issue here.

 

[adolf hamster]

Of course it's a contentious issue. Vaccination is not the issue here.

vaccinations historically proven to work- check
unvaccinated children at risk of serious diseases- check
unvaccinated children are risk to populace- check
parents choice not to vaccinate not based in reason-check

remind me again, where's the contention?

would you argue a parents freedom to beat their child or starve them? because that doesn't even put the rest of the populace at risk.

 

[Destination]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40056680
That said, i dont believe the choice should be in the parents hands at all. Parents feel they should be able to choose whats best for their children but when it comes to medicine, not every parent knows best evidently. It would be unfair to allow children to be endangered by their parents stupidity.

On this point, however, where does one draw the line?
Do you influenza everyone each year?
Do you HPV everyone?
Do you Hep B everyone?
Do you BCG everyone?
Do you varicella everyone?
The vaccine is available and some are doing that.
Different govts pick different vaccines for 'compulsory' distribution. As parents don't know any better, why do govts pick differing varieties?
Which would you make compulsory?

I know what's on my list, but it might differ from others.

 

[Hades]

vaccinations historically proven to work- check
unvaccinated children at risk of serious diseases- check
unvaccinated children are risk to populace- check
parents choice not to vaccinate not based in reason-check

remind me again, where's the contention?

would you argue a parents freedom to beat their child or starve them? because that doesn't even put the rest of the populace at risk.

We both agree vaccination is a superb thing and parents should do it.

Governments however should not mandate such things.

And as for your other straw man argument don't be so silly. You know the answer to that.

 

[Destination]

Governments however should not mandate such things.

And as for your other straw man argument don't be so silly. You know the answer to that.

In return for access to public services or funds I think they should.
If you decide to opt out, then you opt out of the services which rely on herd immunity.

 

[adolf hamster]

We both agree vaccination is a superb thing and parents should do it.

Governments however should not mandate such things.

And as for your other straw man argument don't be so silly. You know the answer to that.

and your reason why the government shouldn't be allowed to mandate this is?

this kind of law only benefits the majority with no detriment, and targets the minority of people who are putting their own, and other's health on the line.

i'd wager the majority of the "i don't vaccinate johnny because tin foil hat" crowd would still take johnny to a&e when he gets a broken leg, or contracts one of the diseases he would have been vaccinated against.

 

[Hades]

In return for access to public services or funds I think they should.
If you decide to opt out, then you opt out of the services which rely on herd immunity.

Then where does it stop? In return for public services or funds you should do everything the government decides to introduce without complaint.

Snoopers charter anyone?

 

[Hades]

and your reason why the government shouldn't be allowed to mandate this is?

What is your reason we should give up the choice and hand it to the government?

 

[Destination]

Then where does it stop? In return for public services or funds you should do everything the government decides to introduce without complaint.

Snoopers charter anyone?

That is most how is works already. You get the meds NICE allows, you get the education they permit and proscribe to a level, you can own property after you pay a tax, you pay taxes on your earning whether you use the services or not.
In this case, you don't get the rights of your citizenship (public services) unless you are willing to accept the responsibility (herd immunity vaccinations) that are suggested.

 

[adolf hamster]

What is your reason we should give up the choice and hand it to the government?

just edited it in.

you talk straw man then bring snoopers into this, a vaccination law gives the government no power, puts nobody at risk, but contributes to the safety of many.

 

[h4rm0ny]

government introduces fine for people exposing their kids to serious diseases.

and this is contentious how?

Well yes, because occasionally the government gets things wrong. Imagine a thalidomide scenario. Imagine if it had turned out vaccines did increase the chance of autism and parents had been denied the ability to hold off getting vaccinations whilst the science was settled. There is nothing more important to a parent than the wellbeing of their child. Try to take away their ability to do what they think is best for the child and they'll go beserk.

 

[Malevolence]

So diseases that were once under control are again on the rise across Germany (and other European States)? Over here, TB was all but eradicated but is now on the rise again.

 

[adolf hamster]

There is nothing more important to a parent than the wellbeing of their child.

as much as i'd like to agree with that, there are enough examples out there that disprove that statement.

yes there is a line to be drawn between personal freedom and control of important issues, but it won't be found here.