Question for the Pro-Vaccinate Crowd

[guzzy]

Yes for major illnesses. The un-vaccinated should be tattooed and banned from public places (schools, pools etc). Why should the hippie anti-vaccinated folks put the rest of us and our children at risk?

[redforever]

No, because in all reality, what will you do with the parents who refuse to vaccinate their children? Throw them in jail?

I think there should be consequences for those who are not vaccinated, and not just fines.

If your child has not been vaccinated, then that child should be barred from school...except for those who can provide perhaps a medical certificate. Religious reasons etc should not be accepted.

Those who have not been vaccinated should not be allowed to work in the health field, teach, etc

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by redforever

No, because in all reality, what will you do with the parents who refuse to vaccinate their children? Throw them in jail?

Charge them with Failure to provide the necessities of life. Easy.

[undercoverbrother]

I am pro-vaccination, but my question is, does the state step in when a parent refuses medical treatment for a child? I am thinking blood transfusions, etc.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by guzzy

Why should the hippie anti-vaccinated folks put the rest of us and our children at risk?

Oddly enough, the anti-vaccination movement isn't just made up of hippies worried about scary-sounding chemicals. While that tribe is certainly represented, a very large percentage of anti-vaxxers are actually religious conservatives. There's an interesting graduate thesis topic in the making there: what is it about vaccines that causes two groups that are almost always at odds with each other to find common ground when it comes to rejecting modern medical science?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Oddly enough, the anti-vaccination movement isn't just made up of hippies worried about scary-sounding chemicals. While that tribe is certainly represented, a very large percentage of anti-vaxxers are actually religious conservatives. There's an interesting graduate thesis topic in the making there: what is it about vaccines that causes two groups that are almost always at odds with each other to find common ground when it comes to rejecting modern medical science?

Sadly, it is also made up of smart educated people, some of which I know.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Sadly, it is also made up of smart educated people, some of which I know.

I found the anti-vaccers are neither of these things.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

I think Maccalus said it best for my position.

Most vaccines have a long history of data to back the mandatory use of them, but not all. I would hesitate to mandate vaccines only because the government would then be liable for any and all adverse reactions, and if there is even one death related to the vaccine that's all the ammunition the anti-vax group needs to validate their position of choice.

In short, it sounds good from a public health standpoint, but it really isn't great from a personal liberty and political standpoint.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by Reaper

I found the anti-vaccers are neither of these things.

I was going to post something similar, but is it really any different than the Doctor who smokes? Nobody's perfect, and some people are perfectly well adjusted, smart, productive members of society except for their one little quirk. Sometimes the quirks are harmless, sometimes they cause self-harm and sometimes the quirk puts others (and their kids) in harms way.

I don't really know what to make of some people.

At the same time, some (maybe the majority) of the anti-vaccinate crowd are completely bonkers.

[Devils'Advocate]

Even for the flu.... some people with compromised immune systems can't have it and they are depending on the herd immunity to protect them. If I ran a business, given the amount of time employees take off with the flu, I'd make it manditory for my employees to have it to reduce sick time.

I am on the yes side, but I can't think of an appropriate "punishment" for breaking this law should be.

[fundmark19]

Originally Posted by Plett25

I was going to post something similar, but is it really any different than the Doctor who smokes? Nobody's perfect, and some people are perfectly well adjusted, smart, productive members of society except for their one little quirk. Sometimes the quirks are harmless, sometimes they cause self-harm and sometimes the quirk puts others (and their kids) in harms way.

I don't really know what to make of some people.

At the same time, some (maybe the majority) of the anti-vaccinate crowd are completely bonkers.

I really don't think Dr's should be allowed to smoke either. They of all people know how incredibly dangerous it is and should be condemning it not promoting it. How do you take a Dr serious when they tell you to quit smoking when after your appointment he goes and lights one up.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I'd say so. Another interesting thing I was thinking about was whether doctors, nurses, and other medical staff could deny treatment to anti-vaxxers on the grounds that it puts them that risk, say especially if the doctor was immunocompromised.

This is already happening

http://www.thestar.com/life/2012/04/..._children.html

Doctors have the right to end a relationship with a patient when there is a “breakdown of trust and respect,” according to the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Unvaccinated children put her other patients at risk, and “at the end of the day, I have to make a decision as to how I run my practice.”

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Yes for the major illnesses, no for the seasonal flu vaccine.

This

[an hero]

Abso-####ing-lutely.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by psicodude

Charge them with Failure to provide the necessities of life. Easy.

Well that is just as stupid as not getting someone vaccinated. Rather than making it mandatory, why don't we focus on proper education. Does someone who refuses to get the flu shot each year get charged with attempted manslaughter? Seriously, I understand hyperbole in order to justify a position but that is a ludicrous idea to charge people for not getting a vaccination.

People who don't feed their children, sure that is failing to provide the necessities of life... a vaccination on the other hand doesn't fall under the same realm in my opinion at least.

Why don't they make it mandatory for children going to government regulated dayhomes and schools to provide a record of vaccinations prior to admittance. That seems to make more sense to me than making it some sort of criminal charge.

[GGG]

No,

I think that those who choose not to vaccinate should be taxed at a higher rate do the cost burden they place on the system. They should also be prevented from attending pubically funded institutions and private business should be able to prevent them from access.

I can't see a suitable punishment for non vaccinating so making it illegal doesn't make sense. You aren't going to take peoples kids away for not vaccinating. And if you support that approach you are dumber than the people who do not vaccinate.

In general when people make choices they should be responsible for the impact they make. So things like smoking or not wearing seat belts or helmts should not be illegal. People should just be taxed based on the added cost that it causes.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Plett25

I was going to post something similar, but is it really any different than the Doctor who smokes? Nobody's perfect, and some people are perfectly well adjusted, smart, productive members of society except for their one little quirk. Sometimes the quirks are harmless, sometimes they cause self-harm and sometimes the quirk puts others (and their kids) in harms way.

The MD that smokes also has an addiction issue.

The person who is anti-vaccine despite all of the evidence is willfully ignorant and a danger to public health by spreading their misinformation to those without the wherewithal to investigate. That's more than just a quirk.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

In my mind the flu shot and other vaccines are separate. Mostly because the flu isn't as effective and has many strains, whereas the others such as MMR are extremely effective and do not require a yearly shot.

On the one hand there is the invasive nature of having a needle jabbed into your arm. Could there be a Charter issue with regard to Security of the Person?

On the other hand, there is not really an effective reason not to get vaccinated, and the benefits are huge. It could also be argued that a vaccine secures one's person as well as the country as a whole, so it may not violate the Charter provision, or in the alternative, be a justified invasion of one's rights in a free and democratic society.


What boils down to is if this is mandatory, what is the punishment for failure to ensure your child is vaccinated?

I don't know if an actual criminal charge is the right way to go. However, a review by Child Protective Services, and having CPS administer the vaccines could be a viable option.

This puts parents on CPS' radar, and depending on how the visits go, children may be place into a better environment to help ensure a safe upbringing. Really, is not feeding, or properly clothing your child that different from not ensuring their health via vaccination? If the first two things could trigger CPS intervention, then so should the third.


When I was a child, booster shots were administered at school. I think having a public health professional do this is a great way to ensure all children are receiving their shots.

Naturally if a child is unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons, then they will be excused. This is something that the parents should have an obligation to inform the school of, even today. They child is at a greater health risk than others, and if there is a health issue the school should know possible problems (same goes for if the child is diabetic, crones disease or any other illness).

Most children would be caught under the public education system. When registering your child you should have to provide proof that your child was vaccinated.

With today's technology we should be able to keep a record of child births in the country and a running tally of who is and is not vaccinated. Reminders can be sent out to parents to let them know that their child requires vaccination X by such and such a date. If my vet can do this with my cat, surely the government can do it.

I'm thinking aloud (errrr via keyboard) about how this may work. Obviously a better list of vaccinations needs to be put together other than "not flu".

I also don't understand or know the reasoning behind religious objection. I would be curious to hear that.

I will admit I expected more of a "it's a good idea, but don't make me" argument in this thread (and by more, I mean actually have read one by this point). I guess the problem was I made a general statement asking a question. I should have taken a hard nosed stance, they say if you want to find out the answer to something on the internet don't ask a question, make a statement you know is false, you will be corrected in seconds.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

This puts parents on CPS' radar, and depending on how the visits go, children may be place into a better environment to help ensure a safe upbringing. Really, is not feeding, or properly clothing your child that different from not ensuring their health via vaccination? If the first two things could trigger CPS intervention, then so should the third.

In terms of immediate risk, yes. In terms of basic human needs, we require food, clothing and shelter. We really don't require vaccinations for living. They are obviously of incredible benefit to health and wellbeing of a person, but they are not a necessity of life. What if someone stills says no, do you really think that it is beneficial to break up a family unit, one that could be loving and nurturing because of vaccinations? The long and short term consequences of such an action would be extraordinarily negative.

Most children would be caught under the public education system. When registering your child you should have to provide proof that your child was vaccinated.

With today's technology we should be able to keep a record of child births in the country and a running tally of who is and is not vaccinated. Reminders can be sent out to parents to let them know that their child requires vaccination X by such and such a date. If my vet can do this with my cat, surely the government can do it.

And they do.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

In my mind the flu shot and other vaccines are separate. Mostly because the flu isn't as effective and has many strains, whereas the others such as MMR are extremely effective and do not require a yearly shot.

No vaccine is 100% and always takes though. If you are going to make vaccines mandatory for children, I fully hope that everyone here is involved in rolling up their sleeves every October/November and getting a flu shot, it is the most effective way to prevent influenza afterall.