Vaccinating children - choice by parent or state?

[illram]

What is this, 1L Con Law? It's a public health hazard. Kids should not be allowed at school if they do not have their shots. Private businesses should be able to bar parents and their kids who do not have their vaccines.

Yes, don't criminalize it, but only because that is not an effective way to get the kids their shots. Want basic public government benefits like public education? Get your kids your shots.

 

[warpus]

I'm not sure if criminalizing is a good way to go either, but on the other hand, if enough people forgo vaccinations - it affects all of us, including our children.. which includes incredibly vulnerable infants. If enough people "opt out", it becomes a problem that affects all, whether we have children who attend public schools or not. So how else to prevent people from opting out? I'm still not saying it should be a criminal offense, but, what alternatives are there? How do we stop the opt-outs?

I'm not so convinced that schools and/or school districts can be trusted to make these decisions logically - they are going to be swayed by money, parents, etc.

 

[illram]

I can't think of any other way. Maybe if you want (a) a driver's license; (b) a passport; (c) to attend any school (university, preschool, whatever) you have to have proof of the full regimen. Or every healthcare plan should include mandatory vaccinations or you're off the plan.

 

[Lillefix]

You have to punish the parents for not vaccinating. The children are an innocent part here for the most part.

 

[Tahuti]

This. I would also take it a step further by having the parents who refused thrown in jail for child abuse/neglect as well as stripping them of their breeding rights by sterilizing both of them.

Considering a lot of people in the Netherlands who would be sterilised under such a law would be Muslims, the left will probably declare you a Neo-Nazi and '1000x times worse than Wilders' and then attempt to have you prosecuted for hatespeech.

I understand where you are coming from though, I'm only saying how such proposals would end up in the Netherlands.

It's got to be either mandatory... or if you make it optional (which you shouldn't), have a rule that kids who have not been vaccinated are not allowed to be enrolled in public schools. Heck, I'd even make it so that they aren't allowed to enter certain other institutions as well - as to not endanger those of us who aren't batcrap insane.

This anti-intellectual mumbo jumbo movement of idiot parents has got to stop either way.

Honestly, I largely avoid areas inhabited by anti-vacs in the Netherlands like the plague. Let's face it, those that live in such areas where such groups are dominant need to tolerate their views and the consequences of such, like reduced herd immunity. No point in voting PVV (the anti-immigrant party) or D66 (the anti-clerical party) if you still insist on living alongside fundi Muslims and orthodox Calvinists while fundamentally disagreeing with their views and not accepting the consequences of living next to them.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Not vaccinating your child does not create an obvious, immediate harm that justifies the state coming in to throw you in jail. Yes, not vaccinating a child does put the child at risk, but being at risk is different from having been harmed. Failing to vaccinate your child creates the potential for a possible harm in the future. It is distinguishable from abusing one's child as there's no contemporaneous harm present.

What's more, the likelihood that the potential harm will actually manifest is low relative to other risk taking behaviors. That distinguishes it from drunk driving which more likely to result in an actual harm to someone.

Not vaccinating your child most certainly DOES create an obvious, immediate harm. Before these vaccines, millions of people got sick with these diseases every year. Knowingly undermining the proven, effective, and safe means that we've used to stop that from happening is the very definition of obvious harm. Your differentiation between harm and risk is a specious argument, there's a lot of stuff we don't allow for children that create risks rather than direct harm. A child playing with a gun is a risk, not a direct harm, because just picking up a piece of metal isn't harmful in it's own right and the risk of being shot to death won't necessarily manifest. But it's a significant risk, so we don't allow it. Saying that the chance of this particular disease risk manifesting is low is utterly wrong, diseases like the ones in question were absolutely rampant before vaccines. (link is to CDC.gov). A lot of people nowadays don't really realize just how bad these things were, which is IMO a large part of how the anti-vaccine movement has gained traction in the first place. Let people see all of their loved ones get sick in a massive pandemic and that momentum would turn around in a heartbeat, but in the meantime a lot of innocent people would suffer, so I'd rather we just not let it get to that point in the first place.

 

[Commodore]

Not vaccinating your child does not create an obvious, immediate harm that justifies the state coming in to throw you in jail. Yes, not vaccinating a child does put the child at risk, but being at risk is different from having been harmed. Failing to vaccinate your child creates the potential for a possible harm in the future. It is distinguishable from abusing one's child as there's no contemporaneous harm present.

Even if what you are saying is true (which it's not), I would still have no problem with the state declaring not getting a vaccine for your child as child abuse. To put it quite frankly: history has proven time and time again that you simply cannot reason with mass-ignorance (which is exactly what the anti-vaccine movement is since their absolutely zero merit to their claims). The only way to stop such ignorance is to force the ignorant into compliance.

To quote the movie "The Giver" (which my wife forced me to watch): "When you give people a choice, they always choose wrong."

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

You have to punish the parents for not vaccinating. The children are an innocent part here for the most part.

Illram's a) and b) sound like reasonable ways to implement that. The other ones might hurt the child though. The last one...does vaccination status currently affect insurance premiums?

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, oldschool preventative measures like mandatory vaccinations - an approach that has worked very well in the past.. in fact, better than anything else.

Why turn away from something that actually works and keeps kids safe?

We talking about the states? We've had religious opt outs, opt outs of conscience all along. We just have lazy people now that don't understand what it is to live in a world with actual real fear of contagion. The boogie monster is more scary that whooping cough. We can continue to win without making it mandatory. You simply need to make sensible restrictions. Unvaccinated children can't go into the building when there is reasonable suspicion of the disease. You can't live in state university dormitories without having the infectious airbornes covered.

If we're going to do draconian, unrelated stuff, like pulling driver's license access then sign me up for wanting dipshats who have non monogamous sex prohibited from driving. The world would be nicer without STDs and I'm really tired that they persist when we have a 100% effective method of preventing their spread. That some people find this prevention onerous is selfish and beyond the scope of me caring. We can make exceptions for people who have an STD forced on them or somesuch.

 

[warpus]

The problem is that parents are given too much power these days - AND they're being fed a lot of garbage by the media about some of this stuff. Essentially they believe what they want to believe, and schools are going along with it, just because.. well, parents know best for their kids, right?

I'm against draconian measures as well, but I'm not so sure mandating that schools refuse kids who haven't been vaccinated is going to work - there's always going to be schools or school districts who end up opting out. That seems to be what's happening now.

 

[Farm Boy]

The problem is that parents are given too much power these days - AND they're being fed a lot of garbage by the media about some of this stuff. Essentially they believe what they want to believe, and schools are going along with it, just because.. well, parents know best for their kids, right?

I'm against draconian measures as well, but I'm not so sure mandating that schools refuse kids who haven't been vaccinated is going to work - there's always going to be schools or school districts who end up opting out. That seems to be what's happening now.

Too much power these days? Probably less power than at any point up till now. Now I actually have to deal with jerkoffs that have been fed garbage media that will try to take my kid if I leave him safe in his car seat while I pay for gas instead of getting him down in a busy parking lot, and activity far more dangerous to his health. And you can tell these people differently, show them the numbers, but they believe what they want to believe and the laws in the states are conforming to back them up.

This game cuts both ways.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

If we're going to do draconian, unrelated stuff, like pulling driver's license access then sign me up for wanting dipshats who have non monogamous sex prohibited from driving.

How would you monitor that effectively? I'm curious.

 

[Commodore]

If we're going to do draconian, unrelated stuff, like pulling driver's license access then sign me up for wanting dipshats who have non monogamous sex prohibited from driving. The world would be nicer without STDs and I'm really tired that they persist when we have a 100% effective method of preventing their spread. That some people find this prevention onerous is selfish and beyond the scope of me caring. We can make exceptions for people who have an STD forced on them or somesuch.

Nice try, but not having non-monogamous sex is not 100% effective at stopping the spread of all STDs. HPV for example is spread by skin-to-skin contact and usually shows no symptoms. So if someone who has the virus touches their junk, doesn't wash their hands and then shakes hands with you and you touch some orifice of your body before you wash, and you now have HPV. I read an article that estimates somewhere between 70-80 percent of the entire human population is infected with HPV and most don't even know it because a vast majority of people never show symptoms but are still able to spread the virus. So chances are, you have HPV and won't know it unless you show symptoms. What's that you say? You've been tested for STDs and it came back clean? Well I got news for you: There is no way to test for HPV, so even if you get tested they won't find it unless you are showing symptoms.

So Farm Boy, how confident are you that you are in that 20-30 percent that aren't infected?

 

[RobAnybody]

The last one...does vaccination status currently affect insurance premiums?

Vaccination status does not, & cannot, affect insurance premiums under the ACA. Also, all the common vaccinations are free, you just can't inoculate against stupid.

"Individuals enrolled in these new group or individual health plans will have access to the vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) prior to September 2009 with no co-payments or other cost-sharing requirements when those services are delivered by an in-network provider." (source, HHS.gov)

 

[Farm Boy]

Nice try, but not having non-monogamous sex is not 100% effective at stopping the spread of all STDs. HPV for example is spread by skin-to-skin contact and usually shows no symptoms. So if someone who has the virus touches their junk, doesn't wash their hands and then shakes hands with you and you touch some orifice of your body before you wash, and you now have HPV. I read an article that estimates somewhere between 70-80 percent of the entire human population is infected with HPV and most don't even know it because a vast majority of people never show symptoms but are still able to spread the virus. So chances are, you have HPV and won't know it unless you show symptoms. What's that you say? You've been tested for STDs and it came back clean? Well I got news for you: There is no way to test for HPV, so even if you get tested they won't find it unless you are showing symptoms.

So Farm Boy, how confident are you that you are in that 20-30 percent that aren't infected?

If everything you say is true then categorizing it as an STD would be an error, eh? Since I'd then have caught it as a TD instead. I'm more sure of my wife than almost anything, and I know where I've been and haven't.

But you're missing the point, the point is more seeing how many people will value getting their rocks off when it's a situation that clearly causes harm and if they couple that valuation with a complete lack of respect for a different stupid and, on the whole, probably less harmful behavior people value like antivaccing.

 

[Commodore]

If everything you say is true then categorizing it as an STD would be an error, eh? Since I'd then have caught it as a TD instead. I'm more sure of my wife than almost anything, and I know where I've been and haven't.

But you're missing the point, the point is more seeing how many people will value getting their rocks off when it's a situation that clearly causes harm and if they couple that valuation with a complete lack of respect for a different stupid and, on the whole, probably less harmful behavior people value like antivaccing.

With the exception of one or two, STDs in general do not pose a threat to destroy the human race. The diseases we vaccinate against though do have that potential. Given that, it is not hypocritical at all for one to be perfectly okay with non-monogamous sex while also condemning those who are anti-vaccine.

And while we are on the subject of STDs, there are laws regarding STDs that set a legal precedent for the state criminalizing behavior that can be considered a detriment to public health. Most states have laws that allow someone to be charged with either manslaughter or murder (depending on the circumstances surrounding the case) if that person knows they have an STD and still has unprotected sex with someone and they end up contracting the disease and dying. That's if it is a potentially fatal STD though. I don't know if you can be charged with anything for a non-fatal STD, but that's beside the point. The point I am making is that through such laws the state has established that it does have the legal authority to criminally punish those who take actions that are not conducive to promoting public health. I unashamedly admit that I would whole-heartedly support (with a big smile on my face no less) any law that criminalized the anti-vaccine movement.

 

[Farm Boy]

On a year to year basis what likely causes more suffering, anti vaccers at the rate we have anti vaccers, or STDs and unplanned pregnancies? I think it's probably not even close. And that's totally ignoring any potential concern at all that we terminate a millionish larval humans every single year.

 

[Commodore]

On a year to year basis what likely causes more suffering, anti vaccers at the rate we have anti vaccers, or STDs and unplanned pregnancies? I think it's probably not even close. And that's totally ignoring any potential concern at all that we terminate a millionish larval humans every single year.

But we, as a society, have already taken steps to disincentivize people from having unprotected sex. The problems associated with that would be much worse without the social and economic pressure we put on single parents and those with STDs.

Society has not, however, taken any steps to address the idiocy that is the anti-vaccine movement. The reason I think it should be criminalized is because the parent is making a decision that does not affect them at all and only has a negative effect on the one for which they are making the decision. At least with unprotected sex, it affects all parties involved and is usually a mutual decision between the parties involved. A parent refusing to vaccinate their child is completely outside of the child's control, and as such is nothing more than an egregious affront to the health, well-being, and civil rights of the child. If that doesn't deserve some jail time, I don't know what does.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sorry. Had not been paying attention and wandered in to find 'bad parenting should be criminalized'.

For anyone that doesn't see that as a joke, just ask; so who gets to define 'bad'?

 

[Commodore]

Sorry. Had not been paying attention and wandered in to find 'bad parenting should be criminalized'.

For anyone that doesn't see that as a joke, just ask; so who gets to define 'bad'?

I want you to point to one post in this thread where I said bad parenting should be criminalized. It's okay, I'll wait....