Should not vaccinating your child be a criminal offence?

[tuco]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No, it wasn't the topic question, but it has become the question of the topic, what child, what illness, what evidence etc...

Alright then, well in that case, I still think it probably should not be a criminal offense. Not sure why it matters what I think though. In my eyes, well being on a child is top priority when it comes to conflict of interests (rights of parents vs rights of child or rights of child vs upholding a law - think of underage having sex and having a child).  So this would be the starting point for me if I was presented to judge such case. If taking away child from parents would benefit the child, I would probably be for such step. As noted, in certain cases it's probably not in best interest of a child to have parents in jail so this is where "probably" from my first sentence comes from. 

Edited December 2, 2017 by tuco

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, tuco said:

As noted, in certain cases it's probably not in best interest of a child to have parents in jail so this is where "probably" from my first sentence comes from. 

 

When did I suggest a sanction? 

[StringJunky]

I think the current policy of exclusion where children congregate and interact, like schools, is sufficient.

[koti]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I think the current policy of exclusion where children congregate and interact, like schools, is sufficient.

You’re talking about the UK? I didnt realize there was a regulation like that in place in the UK, too bad we don’t have that here in PL. Could you link to this information? 

[Carol Joy]

How can people who do not vaccinate their children be blamed for the small percentage of children who are vaccinated but then are  getting a disease?

The scientific theory of vaccination is quite clear: if a person is vaccinated, they do not have to worry about coming down with the illness that they have received a vaccination for... This is why in the 1950's and 1960's, American missionaries, industry and ngo folks confidently went into third world nations, knowing they would not contract polio, small pox, or any of a number of diseases while mingling with the unvaccinated population.

And also, you need to take a serious look at what former CDC official William Thompson had to say about the corruption and fraud inside the CDC over the last 25 years,that finally  caused him to back out of heading any committees or issuing any statements regarding the safety of thimerosal inside vaccines.

While we are at it, why not broaden the discussion to up the ante?? --  the fact that being recently vaccinated for a particular disease could mean that the disease inherent inside the vaccine will shed and then  infect that population that least needs the disease. YThis is why savvy nurses and other health personnel have refused to be vaccinated for smallpox.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Carol Joy

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, koti said:

You’re talking about the UK? I didnt realize there was a regulation like that in place in the UK, too bad we don’t have that here in PL. Could you link to this information? 

In the US but not all the states. They've had a strong policy since 1800's but it's been diluted somewhat.

15 minutes ago, Carol Joy said:

How can people who do not vaccinate their children be blamed for the small percentage of children who are vaccinated but then are  getting a disease?

The scientific theory of vaccination is quite clear: if a person is vaccinated, they do not have to worry about coming down with the illness that they have received a vaccination for... This is why in the 1950's and 1960's, American missionaries, industry and ngo folks confidently went into third world nations, knowing they would not contract polio, small pox, or any of a number of diseases while mingling with the unvaccinated population.

And also, you need to take a serious look at what former CDC official William Thompson had to say about the corruption and fraud inside the CDC over the last 25 years,that finally  caused him to back out of heading any committees or issuing any statements regarding the safety of thimerosal inside vaccines.

While we are at it, why not broaden the discussion to up the ante?? --  the fact that being recently vaccinated for a particular disease could mean that the disease inherent inside the vaccine will shed and then  infect that population that least needs the disease. YThis is why savvy nurses and other health personnel have refused to be vaccinated for smallpox.

What do you mean 'shed'?

[Coveny]

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Do we agree that not feeding a child should be a criminal offence?

If it should be then why should it be?

Is it to do with avoiding suffering and harm?

Is that different from vaccination?

Yes.

Because it causes harm.

No, it directly damages the child.

Yes. One is a protection from a possibility, while the other is a requirement for life.

[Sensei]

22 minutes ago, Carol Joy said:

The scientific theory of vaccination is quite clear: if a person is vaccinated, they do not have to worry about coming down with the illness that they have received a vaccination for...

It's not so simple as you present it. Microorganisms that have host can mutate, and render already existing vaccines useless, to new species of microorganisms.

 

[Coveny]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No, it wasn't the topic question, but it has become the question of the topic, what child, what illness, what evidence etc...

The topic can be taken as anti-vaxxing with or without damages, so it does cover both:

1) Should it be a criminal offense for a parent doesn't vaccine and no one gets hurt

2) Should it be a criminal offense for a parent doesn't vaccine and people get hurt

Most of the responses seem to agree with #2, and it's the most common response type to the topic.

A tangent on whether or not people who encourage others to not vaccinate their children (but don't have children) should face criminal offenses as well.  There does not seem to be a consensus on how to determine the amount of impact, but some have suggested punishing all who possibly could have help to create the situation. I'm not a fan of group punishment when you can't determine who's at fault though.... 

31 minutes ago, Carol Joy said:

The scientific theory of vaccination is quite clear: if a person is vaccinated, they do not have to worry about coming down with the illness that they have received a vaccination for... This is why in the 1950's and 1960's, American missionaries, industry and ngo folks confidently went into third world nations, knowing they would not contract polio, small pox, or any of a number of diseases while mingling with the unvaccinated population.

Please cite your source.

 

Vaccines range in effectiveness, and average around 95% as I understand it, and to my knowledge even in the "effective" cases, if enough of the illness is present it can still overpower the individual's immune system and infect them.

[John Cuthber]

13 hours ago, Carol Joy said:

YThis is why savvy nurses and other health personnel have refused to be vaccinated for smallpox.

I would think that savvy healthcare workers wouldn't get smallpox vaccinations because he disease is extinct.

That's because vaccination works really rather well.

[StringJunky]

25 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I would think that savvy healthcare workers wouldn't get smallpox vaccinations because he disease is extinct.

That's because vaccination works really rather well.

Part of the problem is people below a certain age have no direct experience of what these diseases were like and their prevalence; they are just an abstract concept.

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, Coveny said:

The topic can be taken as anti-vaxxing with or without damages, so it does cover both:

1) Should it be a criminal offense for a parent doesn't vaccine and no one gets hurt

2) Should it be a criminal offense for a parent doesn't vaccine and people get hurt

Most of the responses seem to agree with #2, and it's the most common response type to the topic.

1

That's just a matter of luck, the potential harm is present however you phrase the question; not everyone who speeds will harm others but the potential for harm is increased.

 

15 hours ago, Coveny said:

A tangent on whether or not people who encourage others to not vaccinate their children (but don't have children) should face criminal offenses as well.  There does not seem to be a consensus on how to determine the amount of impact, but some have suggested punishing all who possibly could have help to create the situation. I'm not a fan of group punishment when you can't determine who's at fault though...

That would be a major tangent in which things like free speech would just muddy the waters, needs a new thread I think.

[Coveny]

On 12/3/2017 at 8:11 AM, dimreepr said:

That would be a major tangent in which things like free speech would just muddy the waters, needs a new thread I think.

Just brought it up as it is germane to the topic to a degree. Yes but many of the same arguments that apply to free speech also apply to freedom the freedom to perform actions that could cause harm to others. The decision hinges on should decreasing the chance of something bad happening be required by law. Spreading the propaganda increases the chance that, that chance will happen. (that was a weird sentence... prolly could have wrote that better)   

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Coveny said:

Just brought it up as it is germane to the topic to a degree. Yes but many of the same arguments that apply to free speech also apply to freedom the freedom to perform actions that could cause harm to others. The decision hinges on should decreasing the chance of something bad happening be required by law. Spreading the propaganda increases the chance that, that chance will happen. (that was a weird sentence... prolly could have wrote that better)   

Freedom of speech and freedom to cause harm are very different arguments, I don't think this is the thread to explore the difference. 

[CharonY]

On 11/29/2017 at 9:36 PM, Coveny said:

Many public schools require immunization of children or they won’t accept them. These people are paying their taxes for services they cannot use. Should they get a tax break? Is that fair? Is it ethical to take away services paid for simply because you don’t agree with the way the person using it acts? And if it’s based more on the danger the unimmunized child presents what’s the liability?

This is not a strong argument. As a community, we pay for many things that we do not actually use. But we get other benefits that we could not afford on our own. I.e. people without children pay for schools, too, for example. I will say that if one makes vaccination a requirement, it should be either free or very close to that.

 

On 11/29/2017 at 9:36 PM, Coveny said:

Should we charge anti-vaxxer parents with assault or murder if they cause an outbreak? They generally live in communities, is the whole community to blame? How do we decide (if we agree there should be punishment) who and how much is justified? And what about their own children?

This is, of course a completely different situation. Removing them from school is a step to protect other children (and their parents). This is a question of liability. As there is no intention of harm, assault and murder charges are not in discussion. At most it would be  some level of negligence. 

So the question is mostly reduced to whether sanctions of any sorts are should be allowed to protect the children from risks. And so far, the answer seems to be quite straightforward as there are plenty of rules (e.g. use of car seats) in place to this effect. Considering that vaccination is relevant not only for the affected child but also has public health impact (as to creating reservoirs of disease or endangering immunocompromised folks) I do not see a good argument to make an exception specifically for this case.

 

[Coveny]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Freedom of speech and freedom to cause harm are very different arguments, I don't think this is the thread to explore the difference. 

Freedom of speech that causes harm is what was suggested they are not two separate topics as you've indicated.

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

This is not a strong argument. As a community, we pay for many things that we do not actually use. But we get other benefits that we could not afford on our own. I.e. people without children pay for schools, too, for example. I will say that if one makes vaccination a requirement, it should be either free or very close to that.

This is, of course a completely different situation. Removing them from school is a step to protect other children (and their parents). This is a question of liability. As there is no intention of harm, assault and murder charges are not in discussion. At most it would be  some level of negligence. 

So the question is mostly reduced to whether sanctions of any sorts are should be allowed to protect the children from risks. And so far, the answer seems to be quite straightforward as there are plenty of rules (e.g. use of car seats) in place to this effect. Considering that vaccination is relevant not only for the affected child but also has public health impact (as to creating reservoirs of disease or endangering immunocompromised folks) I do not see a good argument to make an exception specifically for this case.

 

There is a distinction between "don't use" and "refused service". Yes it is common for citizens to pay for services that are available to them, but they don't use. This however is a service they pay for but are not allowed to use. Also it's a not to protect them from harm, it's to decrease the risk of harm. Harm is not eminent, nor is it likely given the coverage levels we have.

The seatbelt is a good analogy. I'm personally against seatbelt laws because I believe it infringes on freedom. 

Greater good > individual freedoms seems to be the consensus, but the government loves to use that hammer with everything from privacy to indefinite incarceration. There are plenty of examples IMO of the government ignoring the constitution with the mantle of greater good.

[CharonY]

You require a motor license to use your vehicle on public roads. 

[John Cuthber]

On 03/12/2017 at 1:11 PM, dimreepr said:

That's just a matter of luck, the potential harm is present however you phrase the question; not everyone who speeds will harm others but the potential for harm is increased.

I think that's a very important point.

We already require people to stick to the speed limit.

We often mandate safety seats in cars for kids.
All of these are mechanisms to protect against "potential" harm and we back them up with criminal proceedings if people don't.

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Coveny said:

I'm personally against seatbelt laws because I believe it infringes on freedom. 

I'm against making everyone drive on the same side of the road because it impinges on peoples freedom.

[Coveny]

8 hours ago, CharonY said:

You require a motor license to use your vehicle on public roads. 

But you can still walk on the road if you want. The same is not true of public schools and vaccines.

5 hours ago, Strange said:

I'm against making everyone drive on the same side of the road because it impinges on peoples freedom.

There is a big difference between organization and freedom...

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, Coveny said:

...There is a big difference between organization and freedom...

Organization and freedom are incompatible, or rather, freedom reduces with increasing organization. If the organizing is wise then the reduction in freedom is worthwhile because what freedom we do have left should make the group more productive and harmonious in their interactions and, thus, the individual gets to act with more freedom and have a better chance of survival than they otherwise would have had in a confined population with limited resources. We don't have the space or resources to act without limitations.

[Coveny]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Organization and freedom are incompatible, or rather, freedom reduces with increasing organization. If the organizing is wise then the reduction in freedom is worthwhile because what freedom we do have left should make the group more productive and harmonious in their interactions and, thus, the individual gets to act with more freedom and have a better chance of survival than they otherwise would have had in a confined population with limited resources. We don't have the space or resources to act without limitations.

I'd disagree with the statement that "Organization and freedom are incompatible". This is similar to cultural conformity. Just because we've agreed as a society that we aren't cannibals doesn't meant we have lost freedom. Freedom can only be achieved in a society if others freedoms are also taken into account. This is what organization does, and why you can't exercise your "freedom" to eat another human being. I will agree that it makes us more productive, harmonious, and gives us a better chance of survival though. Organization is a requirement if you are going to have anything but a dictatorship where only one person has total freedom.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Coveny said:

I'd disagree with the statement that "Organization and freedom are incompatible". This is similar to cultural conformity. Just because we've agreed as a society that we aren't cannibals doesn't meant we have lost freedom. Freedom can only be achieved in a society if others freedoms are also taken into account. This is what organization does, and why you can't exercise your "freedom" to eat another human being. I will agree that it makes us more productive, harmonious, and gives us a better chance of survival though. Organization is a requirement if you are going to have anything but a dictatorship where only one person has total freedom.

Freedom is illusory, no one has it, everyone has boundaries; even alone on an island, your not free to do whatever you want.

[Coveny]

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Freedom is illusory, no one has it, everyone has boundaries; even alone on an island, your not free to do whatever you want.

Only if you look at freedom from a high level of abstraction. Sure I'm not free to fly like a bird so I"m not "free" in that regard. But as dive into the details freedom becomes viable, and a useful term. You may argue that freedom has been limited at this point, but that's not taking reality into account. Or in the case of organization taking others freedoms into account. Once you get to that lower level of abstraction then freedom has meaning. And that level of detail is what this discuss is. Vaccines are not required to make our society function, nor do they infringe on someone else freedoms, so they are within that narrower scope or lower level of abstraction as to what "freedom" means.

[dimreepr]

21 minutes ago, Coveny said:

Only if you look at freedom from a high level of abstraction. Sure I'm not free to fly like a bird so I"m not "free" in that regard. But as dive into the details freedom becomes viable, and a useful term. You may argue that freedom has been limited at this point, but that's not taking reality into account. Or in the case of organization taking others freedoms into account. Once you get to that lower level of abstraction then freedom has meaning. And that level of detail is what this discuss is. 

4

I'm not talking about any level of abstraction, my island example, for instance, doesn't mean you're free to live without food and water.

25 minutes ago, Coveny said:

Vaccines are not required to make our society function, nor do they infringe on someone else freedoms, so they are within that narrower scope or lower level of abstraction as to what "freedom" means.

Again we're talking about potential harm, speed limits are not required to make our society function (an argument could be made that they limit society, financially) but your freedom to speed has been curtailed and society has agreed that it should be. The only possible abstraction in this argument is something like Thalidomide a drug that wasn't properly tested before issue; vaccines are not drugs and they have been properly tested and evinced.