5 ms·

Parents have also done pretty heinous activities in the name of parental discretion. Simply pointing out that heinous activities have occurred is therefore mean

by dalke 10y ago

Parents have also done pretty heinous activities in the name of parental discretion. Simply pointing out that heinous activities have occurred is therefore meaningless. Government policies also agree "that some discrimination among vaccines is prudent". That why some are mandatory and some are voluntary. That's why the polio vaccine switched from using attenuated live viruses to dead ones, even though the latter isn't as effective. There is no requirement that everyone follow a vaccination schedule. As I pointed out, there are good medical reasons for why someone might not be vaccinated. The question is, should non-medical reasons be enough to justify a variance? Should a general sense of malaise be enough? Or, if someone expresses a concern that their child might get ill as a result of a vaccine, and that concern - based on knowing the counts rather than expressed by people who don't - has already been factored into the decision to require vaccination, then should the opinion of one non-expert parent overweigh the opinions of thousands of experts made as the result of decades of study, with open publications and public participation, and repeated in scores of countries? Any absolute statement like yours, which says the parent's discretion comes first, means there is no way to keep a parent from heinous activities, nor for that matter can children be required to go to school. We see this tension already for Jehovah's Witnesses, where doctrine prohibits the use of blood transfusions. If a 2 year old needs surgery which requires a blood transfusion, should the JW parent have a right to let the child die in order to follow the faith? The US says (as do other countries) the doctor has the right to overrule the parent's wishes in that case. Do you want otherwise?

unclebucknasty 10y ago
>Parents have also done pretty heinous activities in the name of parental discretion Actually, it's that counter-argument that's meaningless. The (rather obvious and enormous) difference is that no one is demanding that everyone else do something according to those parents' discretion. It's actually the point here. >Government policies also agree "that some discrimination among vaccines is prudent". It's odd that people are so trusting of "the government" in this one area. The mandatory vaccine schedule most certainly features vaccines for illnesses that are generally self-limiting, and for which the benefits are arguable, even for "experts" (gasp!). >There is no requirement that everyone follow a vaccination schedule. Huh? Your previous comment stated that I might not like it, but the government decides; then it painstakingly laid out supporting case law. Don't know what you're trying to say. >The question is... That whole paragraph progresses into a slippery-slope of increasingly discretionary rationale that highlights why people should have ultimate control over their own bodies. Yes, we could keep listing rationales until, eventually, even you might find a reason for pause. And, your trust in the purity of the process is interesting. >and repeated in scores of countries? The schedule is not uniform and countries disagree over specific vaccines. Kind of blows your whole theory. Now, which "experts" do you trust to decide what you must pump into your kids? >*We see this tension already for Jehovah's Witnesses...Do you want otherwise? False equivalence.
- dalke 10y ago
  All you've done so far is spread FUD, and repeat issues were first visited 100+ years ago, and which have constantly been revisited over that century. Looking now, there was a set of articles about public health and constitutional issues for the centenary, like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/ and the topics on the sidebar. You'll note that it goes into the changing understanding, in part to avoid new atrocities. You haven't added anything new. Even your complaints about 'trusting of "the government"' are older than my parents. By "added nothing new", I mean that the existing policies have long since tried to respect people with viewpoints similar to yours. You haven't proposed anything better than what we have now. All you seem to want to do is throw away a framework which has seemed to mostly work for generations. You also malign me and the system with your statement "trust in the purity of the process". No system is pure, including whatever alternative you might propose. But yes, the vaccine system we have is a lot more transparent and externally verifiable than most of what goes on in government. What angels do you think will run things for us? Of course different countries have different vaccine policies. The world isn't in lock-step, different countries have different levels of wealth and medical care, and many diseases are only regional. Most people in the US don't need the typhoid vaccine or yellow fever viral vaccine, even if they are required in places where those diseases are common. The case law says that children with contraindications and adults are not required to follow a vaccination schedule. That's what I mean when I say that children with a medical reason do not need to follow the schedule.
  - unclebucknasty 10y ago
    FUD? Anything but blind allegiance to the schedule is raging FUD, huh? The real problem here is the zero-tolerance approach that people like you take to the meekest expression of any concern, even while you acknowledge that the system is imperfect. What is that, exactly? "It's the best we got, so sit still while I ram it down your throat" seems to be your argument. I'm not "anti-vaccine", but you seem to feel a need to lump me into that group in order to trot out the same tired lambasting of anyone who even raises his hand with a question. Calm down. >different countries have different levels of wealth and medical care, and many diseases are only regional I'm not talking about developing countries and I'm not talking about yellow fever. Look up the history of the varicella vaccine in Britain, for example. So, the set of vaccines you'd demand of others would be different based on the opinions of experts in your locale. And, you see nothing wrong with continuing to make those demands? No room for questions? OK. I won't even refute the statement about maligning you, etc. I don't have the energy to continue pointing out the contradictions.

by dalke 10y ago

unclebucknasty 10y ago

>Parents have also done pretty heinous activities in the name of parental discretion Actually, it's that counter-argument that's meaningless. The (rather obvious and enormous) difference is that no one is demanding that everyone else do something according to those parents' discretion. It's actually the point here. >Government policies also agree "that some discrimination among vaccines is prudent". It's odd that people are so trusting of "the government" in this one area. The mandatory vaccine schedule most certainly features vaccines for illnesses that are generally self-limiting, and for which the benefits are arguable, even for "experts" (gasp!). >There is no requirement that everyone follow a vaccination schedule. Huh? Your previous comment stated that I might not like it, but the government decides; then it painstakingly laid out supporting case law. Don't know what you're trying to say. >The question is... That whole paragraph progresses into a slippery-slope of increasingly discretionary rationale that highlights why people should have ultimate control over their own bodies. Yes, we could keep listing rationales until, eventually, even you might find a reason for pause. And, your trust in the purity of the process is interesting. >and repeated in scores of countries? The schedule is not uniform and countries disagree over specific vaccines. Kind of blows your whole theory. Now, which "experts" do you trust to decide what you must pump into your kids? >*We see this tension already for Jehovah's Witnesses...Do you want otherwise? False equivalence.

dalke 10y ago
All you've done so far is spread FUD, and repeat issues were first visited 100+ years ago, and which have constantly been revisited over that century. Looking now, there was a set of articles about public health and constitutional issues for the centenary, like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/ and the topics on the sidebar. You'll note that it goes into the changing understanding, in part to avoid new atrocities. You haven't added anything new. Even your complaints about 'trusting of "the government"' are older than my parents. By "added nothing new", I mean that the existing policies have long since tried to respect people with viewpoints similar to yours. You haven't proposed anything better than what we have now. All you seem to want to do is throw away a framework which has seemed to mostly work for generations. You also malign me and the system with your statement "trust in the purity of the process". No system is pure, including whatever alternative you might propose. But yes, the vaccine system we have is a lot more transparent and externally verifiable than most of what goes on in government. What angels do you think will run things for us? Of course different countries have different vaccine policies. The world isn't in lock-step, different countries have different levels of wealth and medical care, and many diseases are only regional. Most people in the US don't need the typhoid vaccine or yellow fever viral vaccine, even if they are required in places where those diseases are common. The case law says that children with contraindications and adults are not required to follow a vaccination schedule. That's what I mean when I say that children with a medical reason do not need to follow the schedule.
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  FUD? Anything but blind allegiance to the schedule is raging FUD, huh? The real problem here is the zero-tolerance approach that people like you take to the meekest expression of any concern, even while you acknowledge that the system is imperfect. What is that, exactly? "It's the best we got, so sit still while I ram it down your throat" seems to be your argument. I'm not "anti-vaccine", but you seem to feel a need to lump me into that group in order to trot out the same tired lambasting of anyone who even raises his hand with a question. Calm down. >different countries have different levels of wealth and medical care, and many diseases are only regional I'm not talking about developing countries and I'm not talking about yellow fever. Look up the history of the varicella vaccine in Britain, for example. So, the set of vaccines you'd demand of others would be different based on the opinions of experts in your locale. And, you see nothing wrong with continuing to make those demands? No room for questions? OK. I won't even refute the statement about maligning you, etc. I don't have the energy to continue pointing out the contradictions.