Current Affairs Vaccinations (v2.0)

[BirkenheadBlue]

I don’t think it’s an arbitrary distinction at all. People should have the right to choose what enters their body.
If someone put their hand on your shoulder you might be fine with it or you might not like it but it wouldn’t be that big a deal. Whereas if they put their finger up your bum then I imagine you would wouldn’t argue that it was an arbitrary distinction.

Yes because that’s a WONDERFUL analogy. Medical protection based on solid evidence, research and statistics (and which protects not only the recipient but also others) is roughly the same as serious sexual assault.

 

[tim cahill]

Yes because that’s a WONDERFUL analogy. Medical protection based on solid evidence, research and statistics (and which protects not only the recipient but also others) is roughly the same as serious sexual assault.

That’s my point. I think it is a serious assault to force something into someone’s body full stop. Consent is vital. The state cannot just overrule people’s right to control what goes into their bodies.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

That’s my point. I think it is a serious assault to force something into someone’s body full stop. Consent is vital. The state cannot just overrule people’s right to control what goes into their bodies.

Yeah but it’s not THEIR bodies, it’s their children’s, AND it impacts others.

Besides, we do it all the time. Parents don’t have carte blanche to make ALL medical decisions for their children if they are against that child’s best interests.

 

[PhilM]

I know somebody who is anti vax and also believes there is some magical cancer cure that all the doctors have agreed not to share with us because money.

Millions of doctors, who've swore to uphold the Hippocratic Oath and on a daily basis help save the lives of others, unanimously decide to disregard their beliefs.

How do the individual doctors benefit from this? Is there a secret pot of gold they benefit from? Cretins who believe all this really do make me nauseas.

 

[The binman chronicles]

That’s my point. I think it is a serious assault to force something into someone’s body full stop. Consent is vital. The state cannot just overrule people’s right to control what goes into their bodies.

If you lived in Bulgaria/Croatia/Czech Republic/France/Hungary/Italy/Latvia/Poland or Slovakia then vaccinations for most things are mandatory. If all countries made it so then every child regardless of nationality, race or social status gets the same chance.

 

[gav1985]

Millions of doctors, who've swore to uphold the Hippocratic Oath and on a daily basis help save the lives of others, unanimously decide to disregard their beliefs.

How do the individual doctors benefit from this? Is there a secret pot of gold they benefit from? Cretins who believe all this really do make me nauseas.

That is my exact thought on it. What is the benefit to them? Surely they would make an absolute fortune by going it alone with this secret cure. The internet is a magnificent tool but it doesn't half show how easily led people can be without any evidence.

 

[Harryflashman]

That’s my point. I think it is a serious assault to force something into someone’s body full stop. Consent is vital. The state cannot just overrule people’s right to control what goes into their bodies.

I suppose the question that springs to my mind in relation to that is a blood transfusion to save a child’s life . The parents refuse , perhaps for religious reasons , and the child will die without it . If you’re consistent I presume , or I’m guessing you believe that child should die or at least take its chances ? I may be wrong but I think in the majority of cases the state takes the decision from the parents and ensures the welfare of the child .

Obviously it’s not the most accurate of comparisons because that child’s ill health doesn’t impact on others around it but clearly the decision on the what goes into the body is removed from parents to ensure the health of the child .

 

[Blue 1]

Antivaxxers are bioterrorists and should be treated as such.

The absolute worst people. I wish someone would send them all to Africa with no jabs so they can test their crackpot nonsense in the field.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

I suppose the question that springs to my mind in relation to that is a blood transfusion to save a child’s life . The parents refuse , perhaps for religious reasons , and the child will die without it . If you’re consistent I presume , or I’m guessing you believe that child should die or at least take its chances ? I may be wrong but I think in the majority of cases the state takes the decision from the parents and ensures the welfare of the child .

Obviously it’s not the most accurate of comparisons because that child’s ill health doesn’t impact on others around it but clearly the decision on the what goes into the body is removed from parents to ensure the health of the child .

Exactly. Jehovah's Witnesses for example only get to refuse blood transfusions on their own behalf, not on behalf of their children.

Parents don't always know best.

 

[tim cahill]

I suppose the question that springs to my mind in relation to that is a blood transfusion to save a child’s life . The parents refuse , perhaps for religious reasons , and the child will die without it . If you’re consistent I presume , or I’m guessing you believe that child should die or at least take its chances ? I may be wrong but I think in the majority of cases the state takes the decision from the parents and ensures the welfare of the child .

Obviously it’s not the most accurate of comparisons because that child’s ill health doesn’t impact on others around it but clearly the decision on the what goes into the body is removed from parents to ensure the health of the child .

That’s a different situation. That is intervening because it is an emergency and there is immediate danger which will certainly result in death if they don’t.

That certainty isn’t there with the risk of catching diseases.

 

[summerisle]

Becoming the country of the absurd.

 

[MouthFullOfFangs]

I don’t think we’re going to agree on this. If you are comfortable with the idea of tearing a screaming child out of it’s mother’s arms to inject it with something against her wishes then that’s up to you. Personally, I don’t think the state should have the right to do that.

How about a child screaming in pain because of an illness that could have been prevented through a vaccination? Btw the screaming when getting injections lasts what, a few minutes? They get over it pretty quickly

 

[tim cahill]

How about a child screaming in pain because of an illness that could have been prevented through a vaccination? Btw the screaming when getting injections lasts what, a few minutes? They get over it pretty quickly

I don’t think a parent who feels strongly against vaccinations would get over it quickly. And what about the children that end up with brain damage from the vaccinations they were forced to have against the will of their parents?

 

[The binman chronicles]

And what about the children that end up with brain damage from the vaccinations they were forced to have against the will of their parents?

The simple fact of the matter is they are much more likely to die or have a disability from having a childhood disease that they could have been vaccinated against. The risk of brain damage from the vaccine itself is tiny in comparison.

 

[dublinbluenose]

I don’t think a parent who feels strongly against vaccinations would get over it quickly. And what about the children that end up with brain damage from the vaccinations they were forced to have against the will of their parents?

There is virtually no evidence of this, those who do get sick after a vaccination are almost always found to be suffering from an underlying condition or its just plain coincidence. Its like asking the parents of kids who suffer brain damage after being hit by a meteor.