Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
Ridiculous comparison? It's far more apt than forced sterilization certainly...
The parents did not believe in insulin, did not believe their child needed insulin, did not give their child insulin. This would have likely prevented a debilitating condition.
Parents who do not believe in vaccines, do not believe their child need vaccines, and do not give their child vaccines have now made their children susceptible to debilitating diseases. Yes, it's not quite the same...in this situation the parents are not only choosing for their child but also anyone else around their child.
In any case, that was never the argument. It wasn't that vaccines were good or not good. It was that the government does not have a right to force someone to put something into their body. Insulin or polio vaccine shouldn't make a difference to that argument.
|
It's the "not quite the same" that is the entire crux of the discussion.
Science tells us that if the child had received regular medical care, including insulin, his death would have been preventable. The parents failed in their duty to provide that necessary medical care and attention. That is against the law.
Vaccines are a "nice to have" and my own position is that parents should face negligence charges if their child dies due to a preventable disease that in the opinion of a doctor they could have vaccinated against. This is not currently the law and is a more controversial position, but I can certainly understand anyone who advocates for either side of it.
Going the step further to say vaccinations themselves are mandatory and it's against the law not to vaccinate is where I would draw the line. That is the government mandating that you must inject yourself and your children with medicine on a purely preventative basis. I'm not ok with government being able to decide that. I'm fine with them saying students need vaccines to attend public schools, I'm fine with other regulations that encourage vaccination. I cannot agree that they can actually mandate it.
Edit: to reconcile with my belief re the parents and insulin, my understanding is that Alberta Health Services would have had the power to step in if they understood the parents were failing to care for the child and make determinations on the child's behalf. People more familiar with the provincial powers in this regard can correct me if I'm way off base on that. But in that case, they could do so due to the actual harm the child would incur without the insulin injections. Actual, preventable and qualifyable harm. Not speculative harm. That's the difference between that case and vaccines.