Coveny

Should not vaccinating your child be a criminal offence?

Recommended Posts

There is a lot of misinformation on the internet that references “studies” that have been debunked my science. There is also the fact that science isn’t infallible and has history has shown what science believe to be good for you today, could later turn out to be bad for you. I believe in this case vaccines have proven they work, and they are good science, but their effectiveness means that the risk is much lower to be exposed and therefore need the vaccine is lower as well.

 

We’ve recently seen cases of preventable illness come back into America after years without a case. I’m a supporter of freedom, but I want what’s best for our society as well. Laws about seatbelts statistically save lives, but this is forcing people to do things against their will for society and their own “good”. How can we call it freedom if we don’t have the choice to make bad decisions? Freedom isn’t defined by a Stepford wife following along because she’s programed to, freedom is defined by doing things like drinking, smoking, gambling, etc that many disagree with. Where is the line in the sand on freedom?

 

Many public schools require immunization of children or they won’t accept them. These people are paying their taxes for services they cannot use. Should they get a tax break? Is that fair? Is it ethical to take away services paid for simply because you don’t agree with the way the person using it acts? And if it’s based more on the danger the unimmunized child presents what’s the liability?

 

Should we charge anti-vaxxer parents with assault or murder if they cause an outbreak? They generally live in communities, is the whole community to blame? How do we decide (if we agree there should be punishment) who and how much is justified? And what about their own children?

 

Is it moral to punish a parent for doing what they believe will help even if the end result hurts their child? I don’t know of a single parent who hasn’t felt like they’ve made some bad decisions in raising their children. It’s not like we received a handbook, and even if we did no one would have time to read it. As it requires more and more time to simply “get by” economically, how much of this is societies fault, and how much is simply a case of not having the time and money to do your due diligence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Coveny said:

There is a lot of misinformation on the internet that references “studies” that have been debunked my science. There is also the fact that science isn’t infallible and has history has shown what science believe to be good for you today, could later turn out to be bad for you. I believe in this case vaccines have proven they work, and they are good science, but their effectiveness means that the risk is much lower to be exposed and therefore need the vaccine is lower as well.

 

We’ve recently seen cases of preventable illness come back into America after years without a case. I’m a supporter of freedom, but I want what’s best for our society as well. Laws about seatbelts statistically save lives, but this is forcing people to do things against their will for society and their own “good”. How can we call it freedom if we don’t have the choice to make bad decisions? Freedom isn’t defined by a Stepford wife following along because she’s programed to, freedom is defined by doing things like drinking, smoking, gambling, etc that many disagree with. Where is the line in the sand on freedom?

 

Many public schools require immunization of children or they won’t accept them. These people are paying their taxes for services they cannot use. Should they get a tax break? Is that fair? Is it ethical to take away services paid for simply because you don’t agree with the way the person using it acts? And if it’s based more on the danger the unimmunized child presents what’s the liability?

 

Should we charge anti-vaxxer parents with assault or murder if they cause an outbreak? They generally live in communities, is the whole community to blame? How do we decide (if we agree there should be punishment) who and how much is justified? And what about their own children?

 

Is it moral to punish a parent for doing what they believe will help even if the end result hurts their child? I don’t know of a single parent who hasn’t felt like they’ve made some bad decisions in raising their children. It’s not like we received a handbook, and even if we did no one would have time to read it. As it requires more and more time to simply “get by” economically, how much of this is societies fault, and how much is simply a case of not having the time and money to do your due diligence?

You can't have freedom where it impinges upon collective responsibility. Vaccination is one of those. The healthy individuals that can be vaccinated should be vaccinated to protect those that can't. Vaccination is more than the individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, making 'criminal offence' from anything is failure of education.. Well educated person in the primary school (as it's obligatory), in the worst case, high school, should understand why they should do something, or not do something, which can kill the all (or significant amount of) people of the world..

 

Lack of vaccination, can have serious consequences, not just to people who were not vaccinated, but entire population. Somebody who will not be vaccinated, gives chance to virus or other microorganisms to grow, and mutate, and potentially being resistant to existing medicaments and existing vaccines.. and resurrection from current "almost extinct microbe" state (because of lack of hosts, allowing them to mutate and spread around the world)..

 

If somebody after primary school does not understand properly words "evolution", "mutation", what is "DNA", "chemical compounds" etc. etc. He/she is not after "primary school" in my vision of "primary school", just some joke of "primary school".. "Primary", in my vision, should learn everything what is essential. What is required to know for somebody living in XXI century. Primary schools should learn quantum physics, chemistry, organic chemistry, in very tiny detail, not to mention IT, mathematics..

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You can't have freedom where it impinges upon collective responsibility. Vaccination is one of those. The healthy individuals that can be vaccinated should be vaccinated to protect those that can't. Vaccination is more than the individual.

Many freedoms like cars, guns, knives, etc impinges upon the collective responsibility, but we still allow them because they aren't guaranteed to impinge upon society.

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

IMHO, making 'criminal offence' from anything is failure of education.. Well educated person in the primary school (as it's obligatory), in the worst case, high school, should understand why they should do something, or not do something, which can kill the all (or significant amount of) people of the world..

Ya but who's the offending party? I have yet to see a curriculum that has critical thinking on the books. Where does the failure lie at that point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Coveny said:

Ya but who's the offending party? I have yet to see a curriculum that has critical thinking on the books. Where does the failure lie at that point?

Try analysing what I said also from point of view of somebody who is not in the USA, nor western countries..

f.e. Africa..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram

"The name "Boko Haram" is usually translated as "Western education is forbidden". "

 

Some (at least "short-sighted") western politicians say (or think) that 3rd world country problems are not their country problems.. just problems of local (usually weak, corrupted, poorly educated, militarised) government problems.. But it can easily get out of control in such case like this, because microorganism once it'll appear, due to enough hosts, due to mutation, won't bother about country borders, nor nationality, nor anything and will simply spread around the world "in the blink of eye"..

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Coveny said:

Many freedoms like cars, guns, knives, etc impinges upon the collective responsibility, but we still allow them because they aren't guaranteed to impinge upon society.

The US is an unfathomable anomaly WRT these two items, being heavily restricted in  the rest of the western world. Let's not derail your thread with this subject though. Let us just accept that  it is what it is. Vaccination relies on collective co-operation to work .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting vaccinated requires very little effort, so the infringement on personal freedom is minimal.

Also, human intuition is horrible with statistics, which is why things like insurance, personal safety or vaccination are regulated in many countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sensei said:

Try analysing what I said also from point of view of somebody who is not in the USA, nor western countries..

Not having proper education isn't solely a western counties issue, but that doesn't address who is to blame for the lack of education in these cases.

 

20 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The US is an unfathomable anomaly WRT these two items, being heavily restricted in  the rest of the western world. Let's not derail your thread with this subject though. Let us just accept that  it is what it is. Vaccination relies on collective co-operation to work .

The point being that we have many items, and do many things that have the potential to harm others, and would work better if we applied cooperation to them. 

 

3 hours ago, Bender said:

Also, human intuition is horrible with statistics, which is why things like insurance, personal safety or vaccination are regulated in many countries.

On that I completely agree, but who gets to decide what a good decision is for someone else's life? That's where the crux of the problem lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Coveny said:

The point being that we have many items, and do many things that have the potential to harm others, and would work better if we applied cooperation to them. 

But there are few things in life where the consequences of our personal action, or inaction in this case, have potential local, national and even global effects. Every infected person is an ecosystem for a pathogen and every person it infects is an opportunity to  perpetuate its existence to harm more people.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Coveny said:

On that I completely agree, but who gets to decide what a good decision is for someone else's life? That's where the crux of the problem lies.

 

It happens in every country every day, they're called laws and who gets to decide them is our leaders; for instance, our leaders decided the speed limit is a good decision for someone else's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

But there are few things in life where the consequences of our personal action, or inaction in this case, have potential local, national and even global effects. Every infected person is an ecosystem for a pathogen and every person it infects is an opportunity to  perpetuate its existence to harm more people.

We could live as isolated individuals and families with no rules, able to do as we please for as long as that lasts. We've instead seen the benefits of banding together in societies, the exponential growth in our own potential when we share tasks and are able to specialize. We praise the benefits, and we must also accept the responsibilities and consequences of increasing our density in our habitations. 

To me, not requiring vaccinations based on personal beliefs would be like letting people dump their garbage on their own property because they object to obligatory trash removal, or think it's a plot to harm them. There are instances where even the harshest Libertarian must admit that the government needs to be able to tell us what to do for everyone's safety. 

With this in mind, I think if you choose to live in an area dense enough for you and your kids to come into contact with other citizens, you've also chosen to abide by the laws put in place to minimize risk to all. I just wish an education that includes critical thinking was mandatory, so everyone understood the risks of disease, and people would think of non-compliance like running out into traffic instead of like defending yourself from science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Coveny said:

Not having proper education isn't solely a western counties issue, but that doesn't address who is to blame for the lack of education in these cases.

 

The point being that we have many items, and do many things that have the potential to harm others, and would work better if we applied cooperation to them. 

 

On that I completely agree, but who gets to decide what a good decision is for someone else's life? That's where the crux of the problem lies.

We do. By electing representatives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bender said:

We do. By electing representatives. 

 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It happens in every country every day, they're called laws and who gets to decide them is our leaders; for instance, our leaders decided the speed limit is a good decision for someone else's life.

Laws don't make morality...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Coveny said:

 

Laws don't make morality...

Are you suggesting vaccinating is immoral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it probably should not be a criminal offense as, with regards to well being of a child, having parent/s in jail can have serious consequences for their child. 

Who gets to decide? Over here, courts: http://www.radio.cz/en/section/curraffrs/court-undermines-mandatory-czech-vaccination-regime

btw the title of the article is imo misleading. Vaccination was not undermined and 99% of parents (statistics not made up) of parents comply with mandatory vaccination regime over here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we agree that not feeding a child should be a criminal offence?

If it should be then why should it be?

Is it to do with avoiding suffering and harm?

Is that different from vaccination?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Do we agree that not feeding a child should be a criminal offence?

If it should be then why should it be?

Is it to do with avoiding suffering and harm?

Is that different from vaccination?

 

Not feeding a child should not be treated the same as not vaccinating a child - doing so would be preposterous. You might as well throw people in jail for life for parking violations. 

I think that failing to vaccinate your children should be subjected to painful monetary fines where the fine is dependable on your income. I think Sweden has something similar in place for driving violations...few years back a large bank CEO got a 40 thousand dollar (or something in that ball park) fine for speeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tuco said:

No, it probably should not be a criminal offense as, with regards to well being of a child, having parent/s in jail can have serious consequences for their child. 

Who gets to decide? Over here, courts: http://www.radio.cz/en/section/curraffrs/court-undermines-mandatory-czech-vaccination-regime

btw the title of the article is imo misleading. Vaccination was not undermined and 99% of parents (statistics not made up) of parents comply with mandatory vaccination regime over here. 

This from your link:

Quote

In his reasoning, Constitutional Court Judge, Ludvík Daniel, said that in similar, exceptional cases, the state may forgo the financial penalty, adding that it is always necessary to assess the strength of the parent’s belief as well as the constitutional dimension and urgency of the reasons and the social impact of their decision.

 

I fundamentally disagree with his reasoning, because the evidence for vaccination is compelling (certainly beyond a reasonable doubt) and so John's point is valid; not feeding a child wouldn't be subject to belief as mitigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say they should attract the same penalty.

I asked why would one be a crime, but the other not?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dimreepr

Well, what can I say? It is your right to disagree. To me, in given context, it sounds reasonable.

Not sure whether nor not malnutrition is a criminal offense. I guess it can be and I am sure it's ground for social services to step in. Interestingly, for me, enough obesity is not seen the same way. 

In my feeble understanding, there is a fundamental difference between malnutrition and lack of immunization: the former always impacts well being of a child.

Edited by tuco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tuco said:

Not sure whether nor not malnutrition is a criminal offense.

 

Of course, if it's deliberate; context is necessary as you suggest, I just don't think it's me that's ignoring it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, tuco said:

In my feeble understanding, there is a fundamental difference between malnutrition and lack of immunization: the former always impacts well being of a child.

So, you consider leaving the child's welfare to pot luck is OK?

Where do you draw the line?
"I left the kid with an open bottle of battery acid- he might be fine".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, tuco said:

In my feeble understanding, there is a fundamental difference between malnutrition and lack of immunization: the former always impacts well being of a child.

 

Indeed, but you ignore the fact that the latter always has the 'potential' to impact the well being of a child.

18 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I didn't say they should attract the same penalty.

 

I didn't say that either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP asked several questions. To me it seems, the status quo (over here) is sufficient since the number of cases of parents refusing to vaccinate remains low and so does the number of diseases vaccination aims to prevent. Though there is some indication, would need to search for a source, that the latter could be changing lately.

Understanding the status quo, how and why it came to be,  answers some of the questions asked. The link I posted was to demonstrate that there can be exceptions to the status quo and these exceptions are for the courts to determine as individual cases need to be examined from various angles. Failing to immunize is not the same as committing murder, for example, so not making statements valid across the board seems reasonable to me.

I do not think you, dimreepr, are ignoring anything. Just you quoted me, so I replied. 

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but you ignore the fact that the latter always has the 'potential' to impact the well being of a child.

I didn't say that either.

I do not or rather I am aware of the said potential. The question, however, was not: How to deal with parents whose child happen to be negatively impacted by lack of immunization? which surely is an interesting and important question. 

2 hours ago, koti said:

Not feeding a child should not be treated the same as not vaccinating a child - doing so would be preposterous. You might as well throw people in jail for life for parking violations. 

I think that failing to vaccinate your children should be subjected to painful monetary fines where the fine is dependable on your income. I think Sweden has something similar in place for driving violations...few years back a large bank CEO got a 40 thousand dollar (or something in that ball park) fine for speeding.

Yes fines derived from income, wealth?, is very interesting concept as it reflects the purpose of penalizing more let's say justly and fulfills the aim of penalizing more closely. However, that its for another debate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tuco said:

The question, however, was not: How to deal with parents whose child happen to be negatively impacted by lack of immunization? which surely is an interesting and important question. 

 

No, it wasn't the topic question, but it has become the question of the topic, what child, what illness, what evidence etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now