6 ms·

Why is it legal not to vaccinate your child? Seems stupid.

• mk89 7y ago
  Some no-vax downvoted you :D Jokes aside, it's not stupid, it's just extremely dangerous. It's unbelievable what a luxury we have nowadays! Saying NO to vaccines. Any person from the last 5000 years would have had these shots without thinking twice about it. We, on the other hand, think not about survival anymore, but about "oh, my freedom is endangered".
  • aerovistae 7y ago
    In what way is it not stupid?
    • mk89 7y ago
      In the way that children may die because of non-vaccinated people around them. And also all those people with serious diseases that can't risk taking other diseases, like people fighting cancer or whatsoever. It's the so called mass immunization, and it's very well documented to have proven improvements in terms of health in the last century. Otherwise let's all go back to the Middle Age where people would die for a cold. It's not me telling. It's being part of society. If you want to benefit from it, you have to follow social rules. Otherwise go live in a jungle like some people do. I find it unfair that a newborn should risk his life because people around are not immunized. It's unfair to benefit from health improvements thanks to all the others that are immunizing themselves through vaccines. That's what I find stupid and evil. First page result on google: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/mass-immunization https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/...
      • mk89 7y ago
        I think I read "in what way is it stupid?". Sorry, my bad :)
  • whatshisface 7y ago
    If you make it a law that you have to buy and consume a certain product, what incentive is there for the manufacturer to care about making it a good one? If in a mandatory-vaccination world contamination and low effectiveness don't reduce the number of people getting vaccines, then I would forecast some serious quality issues as pharma companies (who are corporations, not nonprofit health organizations) get sloppy. In a world where a single pharma company can be given total control of the manufacture of a specific vaccine via patents, mandatory vaccination is really asking for trouble. I could patent a vaccine to cure some random virus, use my army of lobbyists to convince the government it was a health crisis, and distribute saline injections for 20 years.
    • mk89 7y ago
      In a hypothetical world you are really right. In the real world, people survive measles thanks to vaccines, while it wasn't the case just 100 years ago. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/dis/ https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/dis/ Now, you can have all the most interesting 'pharma is bad' arguments, facts are facts. You don't have to go out and worry about catching measles. The biggest worry is "oh shit, will I catch the train?".
• exabrial 7y ago
  I'll speak from the American perspective, YMMV depending where you live: because the government can't dictate what you do with your body. But, if you choose to send them to public schools for instance, they can impose requirements for attendance like vaccination, much like being required to pass a drivers test before using public roads. And yes, you should get your kids vaccinated. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/09/in-the-united-states-russian-trolls-are-peddling-measles-disinformation-on-twitter/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/09/in-the-united-states-ru...
  • tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
    That's how I view it. It’s not a matter of it not making sense or being a "Duh of course you should vaccinate" which is how I feel about it, it’s a matter of giving that type of authority to the state. Once you do that, the precedent has been set.
    • bryanlarsen 7y ago
      Quarantining infections has been a function of government for 10,000 years.
      • tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
        Interesting that you brought that up, If you look up the history of quarantining, it looks a lot different than compulsory administration of medicines. The slippery slope fallacy does not apply to governments. Once you give an inch, history has shown us indeed that miles are taken. So why stop with vaccines? As a thought experiment, imagine the US moves to universal health coverage, where the government is the sole administrator of health payments. As a cost cutting measure, some department introduces legislation that requires proof you take your medication as exactly as prescribed in order to increase positive health outcomes, cut back on medicines administered, and reduce costly office visits. Again, similar situation to vaccines, "of course you should take them as prescribed", but do you want it to be forced? what if you feel particularly nauseous one day and don't want to take your nauseating-inducing drug? Or any other thousands of reasons people forget one time. Maybe you take more? Maybe the pharmaceutical industry was wrong about your recommended dosage and your medicine is killing you. Anyways, it isn't hard to imagine. It's ironic to me that many proponents of "keep the government out of my body" vocalize support for these types of things.
• mieseratte 7y ago
  > Why is it legal not to vaccinate your child? Seems stupid. Why do you feel you have the right to tell me what to do with my body? My body, my choice!
  • ophsj 7y ago
    If your body comes close to me and can infect me with something then I have the right.
    • theandrewbailey 7y ago
      Then they shouldn't leave their property and keep everyone else off.
      • chousuke 7y ago
        It's the other way around. If you choose not to be vaccinated when there is no medical reason that you couldn't be, it is your duty to stay out of public areas where you would be a danger to others.
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  • benj111 7y ago
    Says the man spraying bullets around the auditorium. Or the man urinating on your shoes.
  • saiya-jin 7y ago
    Your rights and freedom end where my begin, and with such an approach you are attempting to kill me and my family by your negligence.
    • joey_bob 7y ago
      Is you/your family immuno-compromised?
• mamon 7y ago
  Because people do not like to be treated like cattle? Parents want to have some control over how to raise their children, even if sometimes it leads to adverse effects.
  • mk89 7y ago
    Seriously? Then live in a jungle. We are meat since the second we are able to breath through our own lungs. Their adverse effects have impact over other people. That's all I care about. That their poor children die because of their parents' beliefs, I find it very sad, but that's how it is, I can't change.
• judah 7y ago
  Libertarian leaning folks will say that forcing people to receive injections at the mandate of a government with a past history of abuse is an infringement of individual liberty. Vaccines have undoubtedly saved millions of lives and eradicated numerous deadly diseases. But whether the government should make it illegal to refuse vaccines is not only a question of health, but one of individual liberty. The answer may be, "public health is more important than individual liberty", but this gets into a gray area.
  • throwaway5752 7y ago
    A bunch of ostensibly libertarian people were all about putting that Ebola infected nurse in Texas in prison in the name of public health, contrary to the opinion of the medical community. Maybe a few people that call themselves libertarians just like libertarian ideals when they overlap with areas of self-interest.
    • judah 7y ago
      That may be so, but it wouldn't matter much. People are messy. I've never met someone who is 100% consistent in their values.
• wendyshu 7y ago
  It's a "slippery slope" argument: if the government is allowed to force it they may force bad things later. However it would be nice if people presented a cost benefit analysis (the risks of sliding down the slope versus the public health impact) rather than just declaring a conclusion.