"Parents who do not vaccinate their children should go to jail"

[Skwim]

(RNS) The entirely preventable California measles outbreak has now sickened more than 70 people. With perhaps hundreds more exposed, the outbreak will likely continue.

As the disease spreads, experts will debate how we respond and what to do about the anti-vaccine movement that’s partly to blame for this mess. Likely, all we’ll agree on is better outreach to parents.

That’s not enough. Parents who do not vaccinate their children should go to jail.

Anti-vaxxers often claim the right not to put “poison” in their children’s bodies. That is ludicrous. A mountain of data has demonstrated that vaccines are safe and effective. Insisting otherwise is akin to believing that the moon landing was faked.

Anti-vaccine parents are turning their children into little walking time bombs. They ought to be charged for endangering their children and others.
source

The vaccination exemption rate among kindergarten students in California — cases in which parents said they did not want their children vaccinated for health, religious or other reasons — was 3.1 percent in the 2013-14 school year, according to the C.D.C. report.
source


An anti-vaccine movement among wealthy people has had significant impact on parents claiming a waiver from having their school-age children vaccinated. Some parents oppose vaccinations for religious reasons, others because they distrust government-mandated health solutions.
source​

​

My question: Is religious belief a justifiable reason to opt out of vaccinations?

 

[Revoltingest]

People who always want to send other people to jail should be sent to jail.

 

[Nietzsche]

My question: Is religious belief a justifiable reason to opt out of vaccinations?

NO. Herd immunity only works if the majority of people are vaccinated. By opting out you put those seriously ill in far greater risk. Think a little girl with cancer. Her immune system is trashed. A case of ****ing mumps could kill her, all because some retard with stupid beliefs decided not to vaccinate themselves or their children.

People who always want to send other people to jail should be sent to jail.

This isn't a matter of religious freedom, it's a matter of someone not losing their child or grandparent because some idiot with an IQ that struggles to reach room-temperature decided that vaccinations were bad

 

[Revoltingest]

This isn't a matter of religious freedom, it's a matter of someone not losing their child or grandparent because some idiot with an IQ that struggles to reach room-temperature decided that vaccinations were bad

I'm objecting to the law-&-order mentality which is all about filling the prisons.

 

[Bokonon]

​

My question: Is religious belief a justifiable reason to opt out of vaccinations?

No. Nor should these so called 'religious beliefs' be used as a legitimate excuse for any other behavior that puts peoples lives in danger.

I am, however, loath to advocate jail time. No need to feed that system any more victims. But we need to take away the legal excuse of 'religious exemption' when it affects the well-being of society as a whole.

 

[Nietzsche]

I'm objecting to the law-&-order mentality which is all about filling the prisons.

In that case, fair enough. I would simply have it be mandatory that you get vaccinations or you're not allowed to public places, especially hospitals and other places where those weak of immune system might be.

 

[Quintessence]

To me, the question isn't whether or not someone's beliefs, religious or otherwise, are a justification to opt out of vaccines.

The question is whether or not we want to endow governments with the authority to force all people to subject themselves to some particular medical treatment because it is deemed to be for the greater good, vaccinations or otherwise.

 

[Revoltingest]

In that case, fair enough. I would simply have it be mandatory that you get vaccinations or you're not allowed to public places, especially hospitals and other places where those weak of immune system might be.

That has merit.

 

[Nietzsche]

To me, the question isn't whether or not someone's beliefs, religious or otherwise, are a justification to opt out of vaccines.

The question is whether or not we want to endow governments with the authority to force all people to subject themselves to some particular medical treatment because it is deemed to be for the greater good, vaccinations or otherwise.

I almost died two years ago because some ****wad didn't vaccinate his daughter and she gave me measles, because I was on immunosuppressants. Your moralizing is simply enabling to those types of people, and it completely ignores the problems with not-vaccinating. We had almost eradicated a plethora of ailments and they've had a resurgence because of stupid people with even more stupid "beliefs".

 

[Quintessence]

I almost died two years ago because some ****wad didn't vaccinate his daughter and she gave me measles, because I was on immunosuppressants. Your moralizing is simply enabling to those types of people, and it completely ignores the problems with not-vaccinating. We had almost eradicated a plethora of ailments and they've had a resurgence because of stupid people with even more stupid "beliefs".

I sympathize with your opposition considering your personal experience, and I understand your anger. It is very difficult to go through something like that.

That said, what I aim to do is prompt us to consider the big picture. We should recognize that if we force everyone to be vaccinated, we are basically giving our government the authority to force a medical treatment on its people if it is deemed to be for the greater good. I am not suggesting that endowing governments with this level of power is good or bad. That's a question for you to ask yourself and answer for yourself. Again, what I aim to do here is not "moralizing," it's to get us to think deeper about this.

 

[Skwim]

To me, the question isn't whether or not someone's beliefs, religious or otherwise, are a justification to opt out of vaccines.

The question is whether or not we want to endow governments with the authority to force all people to subject themselves to some particular medical treatment because it is deemed to be for the greater good, vaccinations or otherwise.

How many (percent, if you wish) cases of a malady affecting society should be tolerated before the government steps in and requires that everyone "subject themselves to some particular medical treatment" in order to stop it? 10%? 25%? 50%? 75%? 95%? Or, is no number justified? Even if everyone comes down the malady is not reason enough to have required they "subjected themselves to some particular medical treatment."

Some Key Facts

Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
In 2013, there were 145 700 measles deaths globally – about 400 deaths every day or 16 deaths every hour.
Measles vaccination resulted in a 75% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2013 worldwide.
In 2013, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 73% in 2000.
During 2000-2013, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health.
source
​

And the thing is, even if the person opting out of the vaccine doesn't suffer, he could pass the malady on to someone who does.

​

 

[Quintessence]

How many (percent, if you wish) cases of a malady affecting society should be tolerated before the government steps in and requires that everyone "subject themselves to some particular medical treatment" in order to stop it?

Perhaps there's been some mistaken assumptions here, because you oddly seem to be attempting to argue with me. I have not argued for or against any particular position. I have no interest in arguing, much less am I interested in converting someone to accepting one perspective over another. I am interested in prompting people to think about their position and answer the question for themselves. And, perhaps, to learn to understand and empathize with the perspectives of others.

 

[Iti oj]

@Quintessence I fear the president being set. It seems like a loose loose untill you realize there are other was to fix stupid. At least generationly. Invest in education. Among other socio-economic issues.

 

[Sunstone]

The giant pharmaceutical companies would love a law making their products mandatory. It would set a precedent allowing them to lobby for all sorts of their products to be mandatory. Of course, they're too moral to do such an underhanded thing. I'm just saying that they would do such a thing if the world were not actually a rose-colored bucolic paradise.

 

[Sees]

I'm one of the dummies who doesn't do vaccinations anymore or have the little ones vaccinated.

Has nothing at all to do with my religious traditions and I'm surprised that it does for some.

 

[Faybull]

You know, it is quite humorous. Being that we are the only species of living thing that possesses the capacity to tend or protect any other living thing on this Earth, that something like the measles is even a threat. No? I think we dropped the ball somewhere.

 

[Willamena]

My question: Is religious belief a justifiable reason to opt out of vaccinations?

Only if the question of whether to vaccinate or not is a religious issue.

 

[SomeRandom]

I recall once during a Whooping Cough epidemic our school nurse was furious and proceeded to go to all the classrooms she could and had us all learn what vaccination does. Not sure why as we were all in High School and pretty much all vaccinated anyway. But I guess the venting did her some good.
But I digress.

Anti Vaxers (unless for a legitimate medical reasons, of course) do tend to **** people off. Especially those in the Medical field, it seems. Although after being shown what an iron lung was in School, I can't say that I blame the Medical Boffins for hating those who actively choose to risk that being brought back. I'm not sure about jail time, but some serious in depth education might be in order.

 

[Ingledsva]

I'm one of the dummies who doesn't do vaccinations anymore or have the little ones vaccinated.

Has nothing at all to do with my religious traditions and I'm surprised that it does for some.

Yep, I know quite a few people whom don't believe in such, either.

I also know two kids that WERE harmed by vaccines. Both cases followed the second set of baby vaccinations.

On my island it has been tradition - that when someone got measles, or chickenpox, etc. originally called childhood diseases, the whole community brought their young children over, - to expose them early. I have had measles and chickenpox as a child, and am now pretty much immune. Not a big deal if exposed at the right time, - which as I said - was a taught tradition, still practiced.

I believe the problem is that these shots are given too early, before their immune systems are fully formed. I believe vaccinations would be safer, long term, if they waited until just before a child started school. No I infant vaccinations.

IMMUNE: resistant to a particular infection or toxin owing to the presence of specific antibodies or sensitized white blood cells.

*

 

[Skwim]

Perhaps there's been some mistaken assumptions here, because you oddly seem to be attempting to argue with me. I have not argued for or against any particular position. I have no interest in arguing, much less am I interested in converting someone to accepting one perspective over another. I am interested in prompting people to think about their position and answer the question for themselves. And, perhaps, to learn to understand and empathize with the perspectives of others.

And I never said you seemed to argue anything; however, you did contest my question, saying it was the wrong one to ask: " the question isn't whether or not someone's beliefs, religious . . ." but rather "whether or not we want to endow governments with the authority to force all people to subject themselves to some particular medical treatment because it is deemed to be for the greater good, vaccinations or otherwise." And I tried to show that your question isn't worth thinking about.

But just in case you still think it is, how about answering my question,

"How many (percent, if you wish) cases of a malady affecting society should be tolerated before the government steps in and requires that everyone "subject themselves to some particular medical treatment" in order to stop it? 10%? 25%? 50%? 75%? 95%? Or, is no number justified?​