Alberta introduces new bill to increase vaccination rates for children

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

No your right, the government should be allowed to put whatever they want into my body without consent.

Why don't we force everyone to give blood while we are at it? Proven benefits, no reason not to, saves lives.....

Actually we should give the government a DNA sample so they have it on file in case ever commit a crime it will be easy to identify people. There's a greater good to that.

Why stop there? We could always inject them with a tracking tag, like the ones we give to dogs. No taking away anything there, in fact, they could gain some cool new tech. It would be neglectful to allow parents to keep their children from being able to be tracked by the police 24 hours a day, it's tantamount to child endangerment.

Right?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Mandatory vaccines... where do YOU draw the line? Who can say no? Allergies? What if the allergy isn't that bad? What if the reaction is a minor inconvenience compared to the herd benefits? What if it's a bad reaction, but not life threatening? How about if it doesn't take? How many times should they try? 2? 10? Yearly for the rest of their life? If we restrict rights of those that won't, should we restrict rights to those who can't? It's all about protecting the herd, isn't it?

Way to lead yourself into your own argument that I've already covered. It's because of people with allergies that I'm advocating others get the shot. Of course if a doctor believes someone is susceptible to a bad reaction they would not be required to get a vaccine. Like nearly all of my arguments, I tend to leave it to the experts to decide...

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What's the punishment for not vaccinating? Removing kids?

Yes.

I know it would never happen, but I would advocate fully and completely that anyone not getting their eligible child a vaccine should have their child removed. I see it akin to child endangerment and a cost to society. If you're willing to put some pseudoscience bull#### ahead of the health of your own children and neighbours' children, you should forfeit the right to raise them and the government should protect them.

Now how about this. Did the Raditas deserve to have their child removed because they did not give him insulin? Does the government not have a duty to protect children from negligent and unintelligent parents putting their children at risk? But in that case, does that not mean the government does have the right to force someone to put something in their (child's) body?

People will avoid answering the question, but if you believe that they should be forced to give their child insulin, you're not very far off from advocating for forced vaccines...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GGG

Organ donation should at least be opt out rather than opt in.

For mandatory vax people where do you fall on the flu vaccine? I prefer fines for non-vaccination. People still have a choice to be stupid but it will cost them. ManadaTory as in forced injection I don't think I could support.

Back when the H1N1 hit, I was on the other side of the argument. I didn't like how the vaccine was rushed out and that the effectiveness was not tested. Also, because there was a limited supply, I thought only people who really needed it should get it. For that reason, I said I was opting out and with all the madness going on, I was piled on hard around here. I was called anti-science. Someone even called me a murderer! Lol. When the hoopla ended and there were no lines, I did eventually get the vaccine though. I had the Norwalk Virus in the 90s bad and so I am definitely pro-flu vaccine as well.

I don't think Health Canada has made the flu vaccine part of the childhood vaccine suite though, so for that reason I don't think it should be mandatory for children. I trust the experts. If they ever do though, then I will reconsider my position.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Way to lead yourself into your own argument that I've already covered. It's because of people with allergies that I'm advocating others get the shot. Of course if a doctor believes someone is susceptible to a bad reaction they would not be required to get a vaccine. Like nearly all of my arguments, I tend to leave it to the experts to decide...


Yes.

I know it would never happen, but I would advocate fully and completely that anyone not getting their eligible child a vaccine should have their child removed. I see it akin to child endangerment and a cost to society. If you're willing to put some pseudoscience bull#### ahead of the health of your own children and neighbours' children, you should forfeit the right to raise them and the government should protect them.

Now how about this. Did the Raditas deserve to have their child removed because they did not give him insulin? Does the government not have a duty to protect children from negligent and unintelligent parents putting their children at risk? But in that case, does that not mean the government does have the right to force someone to put something in their (child's) body?

People will avoid answering the question, but if you believe that they should be forced to give their child insulin, you're not very far off from advocating for forced vaccines...

That's some grade A, solid certainty in the righteousness of your cause.

to quote C.S. Lewis

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Knalus

That's some grade A, solid certainty in the righteousness of your cause.

So yes or no to forced insulin injections?

I mean it's a discussion and I'm perfectly capable of seeing where you guys are coming from but I do fail to see the difference here and would like a complete explanation.

Everyone was up in arms when they heard about the poor child. Everyone but the crazies thought that the parents were despicable people and should have been forced to give him insulin. If you followed the case, the parents loved their child...they were just idiots. Yet everyone was wondering why they even had custody of their child at this point...

So what's the idea. Don't force vaccine but if they get polio then take the child away? We gambling now with children lives.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

So yes or no to forced insulin injections?

Quite the eye roll there. As if it is a foregone conclusion, and not a very difficult question. A very, very difficult question that cannot and should not by any reasonable person, be made in a time frame anything resembling a forum discussion.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Quite the eye roll there. As if it is a foregone conclusion, and not a very difficult question. A very, very difficult question that cannot and should not by any reasonable person, be made in a time frame anything resembling a forum discussion.

If you aren't willing to discuss the question, why both responding to the post. Take the time to think about it...

Should a parent be forced to give insulin to their child?

Should a child be forced to take blood transfusion to save their lives?

Yes, difficult questions. But for the people who have already determined that the government can not force anyone to put anything into their (child's) body, the answers should be consistent.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

So yes or no to forced insulin injections?

I mean it's a discussion and I'm perfectly capable of seeing where you guys are coming from but I do fail to see the difference here and would like a complete explanation.

Everyone was up in arms when they heard about the poor child. Everyone but the crazies thought that the parents were despicable people and should have been forced to give him insulin. If you followed the case, the parents loved their child...they were just idiots.

To say that they should have given insulin is not a hard thing to determine. To then say that it must then be administered by force without consent is in a completely different ballpark. A dangerous ballpark.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

So yes or no to forced insulin injections?

I mean it's a discussion and I'm perfectly capable of seeing where you guys are coming from but I do fail to see the difference here and would like a complete explanation.

Everyone was up in arms when they heard about the poor child. Everyone but the crazies thought that the parents were despicable people and should have been forced to give him insulin. If you followed the case, the parents loved their child...they were just idiots.

There is a huge difference.

You seem to have trouble drawing lines, I don't have a problem with doing so. Life is full of variables.

Refusing medical treatment for a disease which your child has and is manageable through that treatment? Not ok.

Refusing a vaccination for a disease your child may very well never ever get and (if they could) is more likely to be of little consequence to their health than it is to be life or death? Fine.

You keep calling them idiots, do you see how mandatory educational programs fixes that long before mandatory injections does? What's the worst possible reaction from an education course? Making a friend? Isn't education how we usually fix idiots?

I'll ask YOU again. Are you anti-abortion or not? I'm curious to where you draw the line on the value of a life and a parent's right to choose.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

If you aren't willing to discuss the question, why both responding to the post. Take the time to think about it...

Should a parent be forced to give insulin to their child?

Should a child be forced to take blood transfusion to save their lives?

Yes, difficult questions. But for the people who have already determined that the government can not force anyone to put anything into their (child's) body, the answers should be consistent.

Clearly, because I do not have an easy answer, your easy answer must be correct? I can't question your certainty because I do not have certainty myself?

[kevman]

Forcing anything on anyone is a slippery slope and I don't think it should be taken lightly.

Ok, so vaccines have the ability to saves lives. Great. I'm fully up to date on my vaccinations. But to force it on others, I just don't know if I can get behind that. That said, I'm a young healthy adult and don't get a flu shot so I already know I'm a bad guy in the eyes of many.

If we're talking health effects, everyone knows that alcohol is bad for you and is directly related to thousands (more?) of deaths a year. Should we try Prohibition again? Yes, I related them and no, I don't think that's a stretch. Frankly it's shocking that in a world where kids are having their lunches screened for junk food that we still allow adults to consume poison.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What's the worst possible reaction from an education course?

Getting measles and dying because some other child didn't get treated and you were ineligible to receive the vaccine?

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

There is a huge difference.

You seem to have trouble drawing lines, I don't have a problem with doing so. Life is full of variables.

My line, at this point, would be child endangerment. If you're putting your child at risk of terrible diseases that they otherwise would have near zero risk of getting, you don't deserve that child.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Here's your line PepsiFree:

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Families should always have the right to choose, and no government should have control over what we put into our bodies.

So when the Raditas chose not to put insulin into their son's body, should you not be supporting that decision? Do you change your opinion that the government should have control over what we put into our bodies under certain conditions then?

At least we can start trying to define your line if that's the case.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

My line, at this point, would be child endangerment. If you're putting your child at risk of terrible diseases that they otherwise would have near zero risk of getting, you don't deserve that child.

I see you're conveniently avoiding my question.



Should be simple. Your line is child endangerment. Anti-abortion, yes or no.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Getting measles and dying because some other child didn't get treated and you were ineligible to receive the vaccine?


My line, at this point, would be child endangerment. If you're putting your child at risk of terrible diseases that they otherwise would have near zero risk of getting, you don't deserve that child.

Child Endangerment can (and will) be used for all manner of rights being taken away. In fact, it was the prime reason why patients in a mental institution were sterilized. What's your take on the sterilization of mental patients? Anything for child protection, correct?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

There is a huge difference.


Refusing medical treatment for a disease which your child has and is manageable through that treatment? Not ok.

Refusing a vaccination for a disease your child may very well never ever get and (if they could) is more likely to be of little consequence to their health than it is to be life or death? Fine.

Herd immunity. Look it up.

I think people in the Western world forget that it wasn't long ago that if you had 3 siblings, the chances were that one of you would die in childhood from the same diseases that we now have vaccines for. Heck, I'm not that old and even my dad had a sister die when she was 6 from a childhood disease. And in developing countries, those numbers are still up there.

It's not about you.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Child Endangerment can (and will) be used for all manner of rights being taken away. In fact, it was the prime reason why patients in a mental institution were sterilized. What's your take on the sterilization of mental patients? Anything for child protection, correct?

Knalus, you can't even come up with your own opinion on insulin. I don't see why you are so focused on trying to take away my opinion on vaccines.

My stance on vaccines have nothing to do with sterilization or abortion or castration. Period. You guys want to grab some weird argument to hurt mine, but they aren't the same.

It's PepsiFree and Coorporatejay who have reached their stance on vaccines because "no government should have control over what we put into our bodies" so that's where the question of whether they believe insulin should have been mandatory and forced for the Raditas becomes an interesting focal point. It goes against their original belief that the government does not have the right to tell us what to do with our bodies ergo they should not require forced vaccination of children. It's a discussion, I want to hear their thought process. I realize they are reasonable, I just want to see their reasoning for the apparent contradiction.

[morgin]

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.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by morgin

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.

Science also tells us that many of the child meningitis death and cases would have been preventable had the parents vaccinated their child though.

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.

At that point you're pretty much gambling though and it's with a child's life. Worse yet, it may not even be your child as there's people ineligible for vaccines who do contact deadly diseases.

Again though, there's no real argument against choosing vaccines except from the crazies and ill-informed. You're not going to get autism from the mercury in them. So where's the downside? We know it would save lives, potentially save on healthcosts, but the big argument being brought up for forced mandatory vaccinations is that big scary government infringing on our rights and deciding what we can do with our bodies.

Government already infringes on our "rights" when they take away children from neglecting parents. I believe, and fail to see an argument against it, how parents who opt-out of vaccines are not neglectful. Putting a child at an unnecessary risk for no good reason. And I think a lot of the weight about the big scary government forcing us to put vaccines in our bodies gets taken away when a lot of the same people saying that would have been saying the Raditas should have been forced to give insulin or have had their child taken away.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Here's your line PepsiFree:


So when the Raditas chose not to put insulin into their son's body, should you not be supporting that decision? Do you change your opinion that the government should have control over what we put into our bodies under certain conditions then?

At least we can start trying to define your line if that's the case.

I still support the claim, 100%. It's the basis of my entire argument. Does that mean that exceptions for just cause make me a hypocrite? If it does, so be it, but that's how the world works. Nothing is completely black and white.

I also think parents have the duty to protect their child from certain death, and that they should rightfully be tried for murder should their child contract a deadly disease which they refuse to treat them for.

The risk of dying because you weren't given routine vaccinations is still incredibly low. The risk of dying from a deadly disease because you weren't given treatment is 100%.

Your solution to the problem of "idiots" is taking away the rights of everyone and giving the government full control to drug and vaccinate the population. My solution is simply educating people.

You need to answer the abortion question, or sterilisation, or whatever. Why? Because you've brought up multiple bizarre hypotheticals revolving around injecting kids with heroin and refusing a sick child treatment for a deadly disease. If you truly equate these things to the belief that the government should not be able to mandate any injection to 100% of the population, then you should at least be able to see the connections we're making.

Don't ask the types questions you're afraid to answer yourself.