Is it time to consider compulsory vaccinations?

What qualifies as a medical reason? Do they only come from doctors and is it possible for a layman to disagree with their doctor for medical reasons?I heard today on the radio that we are going to stop the mandatory use of erythromycin eye drops at birth in Ontario. I remember arguing with our doctor when my son was about to be born that I thought it was ridiculous and unnecessary. He didn't like that at all and threatened me with visions of blindness and said something like 'well it is not up to you'.Why do we bother with second opinions and why does the professional even bother with gaining consent when advising the ignorant layman? Is the medical care of my children really up for me to decide or is all just patronizing appeasement? It took me a while to decide that I shouldn't just insult you in kind but I realize that you are only looking after your own interests as you see them.You know that it can be very painful to put erythromycin in your eyes. Was that child abuse when we did that to our newborns or did our motivation change something there?Have you considered at all what rights you trample when you insist on a philosophy of health care for everyone? I find your position surprising for someone so well acquainted with what it took to gain these rights.

I had an uncle who suffered a damaged leg from polio and that was bad enough.I argued hard at town council for our little village to spend the $6 million to install sanitary sewers even though my septic system worked just fine. I recall mentioning polio at one meeting and an opponent to the project saying 'that's why we have vaccines.' He was one of those who's septic system was too small and dumping raw sewage directly into the lake. In the end the project went ahead and it cost me $12k to connect.So I am not so sure that it is only those against vaccination who suffer from the cranial-rectal inversion when it comes to identifying a threat. The similarity that we all share is that we consider our own needs first. The difference is where we perceive the threats to be. We can't change the fact that success against a threat is going to alter our perception of that threat. Indeed, our success actually does alter the threat. Using mortality statistics from 1952 for polio or measles death rates in Liberia is not quite right.Vaccination programs are like an arms race. Sometimes we have to get into them but that shouldn't mean that we can't get out of them or that anyone suggesting an alternative is an idiot.

Present an alternative. I'd like to see an effective alternative to a comprehensive vaccination program.

Yes, you can disagree with your doctor, but I suspect that such disagreement does not carry any weight.I hope you understand that the policy you are complaining about is pretty much the way things work in many states right now. If you want to invoke a medical exemption, you bring a doctor's note.

You should go ahead and deal the insults. But I put people who avoid immunizations for piss pour reasons in the same group with people who don't treat their kids for cancer for personal/religious reasons. That's just child abuse.I have yet to see a single good reason from you for not vaccinating your kids. And now you seem to think you are some kind of crusader for civil rights. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Perhaps mentioning polio was not the most persuasive argument. After all, the polio vaccine is so effective that polio has been nearly irradicated in many of the poorest countries on earth.Perhaps typhoid fever would have been a better protagonist?

Or as you mentioned, not when they visit the mall. How you get that from my mention of checking shot records at public school, as we do already is anyone's guess. In fact, state colleges in NC also do that.I like tits!Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You got lost somewhere; let me help orient you: What I was pointing out in Message 396 is that simply barring unvaccinated people from public school doesn't go very far in keeping them from becoming a public health threat.To fully eliminate the threat we'd have to implement such checks everywhere people come into contact with one another, which, as I've repeatedly said, would be ridiculous and impossible to enforce.ORThe alternative is to simply make vaccination mandatory.

You are correct that it is a human bias. Look at the housing and stock market bubbles. As the old saying goes, stupidity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I would only use "idiot" where appropriate. For the most part, people are having an emotional response to what should be a rational decision. Again, this is a very human thing to do. People are afraid that their kids are going to get autism from vaccines, and that scares them. Autism is more of a threat because they see more autistic kids than the do kids with measles, polio, and pertussis combined. The reason that they see so few kids with these diseases is because of vaccines, but that fact doesn't always make it through the fear that the anti-vaxer groups have drummed up.When I approach a subject I am not immediately familiar with, the first thing I do is look at the resources that each side uses. The pro-vaccine side uses references from the CDC and peer reviewed papers. The anti-vaccine side continually references blogs and non-scientific sites that are the vaccine version of creationist websites. The anti-vaccers are the creationists in this debate.

Perhaps we could use a symbol that everyone could see, say a rouge or vermillian symbol. Perhaps a V . . . yes, the Scarlet V . . .

Huh?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

I'm not asking you a general question.I want to see the calculation on which you base your opinion that we ought to prevent people from working unless they have vaccinations. That is not a result that has been reached by society here in the US. And it is not a result I come to simply because I know I have to crack eggs before I eat them.

Doesn't your opinion about your health or the health of your kids matter in a discussion about your health with your doctor?It has been a little while since we looked upon our doctors as some kind of shaman with magical powers. What is my legal relationship with my doctor? Does he work for me or am I the groveling recipient of his beneficence?Yes my doctor knows more than I about disease and medicine and this is why I seek his advice. The same goes for my lawyer concerning matters of law. Their job is to give the advice and my job is to decide whether or not to follow it. This situation is highlighted nicely when a doctor becomes a patient or a lawyer becomes a client. The smart ones take the advice but you can be damn sure that they reserve the right to refuse it. What are you a fucking idiot? I already said that you didn't deserve to be insulted. This is not entirely surprising as I have not been able to provide any.However, I would rather ask 9 questions that have already been answered than miss the 1 that hasn't been asked. As far as I can tell they have been mostly addressed but just because a question has a good answer doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to ask it. As you know, the science is only settled when we stop asking the questions. On top of this, life and health are not only about science and efficiency. There is a reason that Spock wasn't the captain.In the end we have to make a decision and always from a position of at least some ignorance. It comes down to an assessment of risk and the risks are dynamic. So I readily agree that we should council everyone to vaccinate their children and themselves but I would stop short of insisting on it. I value the right to make that decision more than I fear the diseases.

Not a quote from my post, so keep your fuck. As I said, I'm sympathetic to liberty arguments against almost everything mandatory: I require compelling societal reasons. In my view, the protection of children's lives qualifies as compelling.Similarly, I would not allow parents to pray their child to death in the face of an eminently treatable illness. Nor would I accept the substitution of leeches for antibiotics in such a case simply because, in their liberty-loving little hearts, the parents think that best.As I noted before, vaccine resisters, if their numbers continue to grow, will provoke a public response far harsher to liberty than any fines or restrictions on movement: just as soon as the bodies start piling up.The case of Typhoid Mary is instructive. She stoutly defended her right to continue working as a cook, even after several families who employed her developed typhoid. After being forcibly quarantined, she promised not to work as a cook, but soon returned to that job and promptly infected more people. She insisted she was in perfect health; she did admit she saw no reason to wash her hands while working.She spent the last few decades of her life in quarantine, after her fierce defense of her liberty killed a number of people and sickened many.I know the analogy isn't perfect, but I'm using it to illustrate what happens when reason and evidence cannot sway a "stubborn liberty" that threatens society.To the best of my knowledge, the recent outbreaks tied to vaccine refusal haven't resulted in any deaths here in the U.S. Soon enough, they will, and the public and institutional response will blow liberty concerns away like fog. Using the principles of individual liberty and civil disobedience to argue for the right to endanger public health cheapens those principles and puts them at risk when they are next used to protest and resist authentic threats to liberty.Defying the law is like sounding a trumpet: "Look here! Look here! This is madness!" In that way, civil disobedience is powerful and honorable. But reality must take precedence over a defiance which can marshal neither evidence nor reason for its insistence on a freedom to harm. I don't think you reasoned yourself into your position.

I haven't expressed any such opinion. I've pointed out the fact that society grants people the privilege of working within its jurisdiction. I've suggested that society might want to consider vaccinations as one of the steps in earning that privilege.