Parents who don't vaccinate their children should be liable/sued...

[deafgal]

S9me don't vaccine for religious reasons (like embryos research)

 

[JASMAK]

My sons aren't done and I highly doubt the government here would be wasting money they haven't got trying to prove they were the source of any outbreak around here. However, Kevin Rudd (PM at present, but also candidate to stay on when the election happens shortly) is trying to cut benefits to those who don't vax their kids. Clearly we are living in Big Brother's house, and here I thought we were in a free country.

Ah. Yes. The article. Again, imposing on basic human rights-- the right to choose, as well as censorship of the non-vaxing community, no doubt with a bunch of "facts" thrown in to appease those who think not vaxing is the single most evil thing on Earth.

Sigh. Next!

Wow...cutting benefits. Thats ridiculously harsh. I am pro vaccine, but everyone has a right to medical care! What about people who smoke, drink too much, eat too much....they all get health care. I dont know this guy, but he makes my lood boil!

 

[deafgal]

And I once posted about a local pediatrician clinic in my area who decided not to provide service to unvaccinated children (by choice of their parents). They claim it is to protect children who can't be vaccinated. Then they added parents don't trust them as professionals anyhow.

 

[pinklightbulb]

Just Google Kevin Rudd and "stopping parts of Family Tax Benefit for not vaccinating" and you will see what a f*ckhead he is. He has lost office once before and probably wil again, since he's an idiot, lol.

 

[Fergie]

I agree that unless it's a medical reason then ALL children should be vaccinated. I have seen measles and polio in action and it's horrific and I do mean horrific. I would never put my children through that no matter what the reasoning unless medical.

 

[Foogirl]

I think all who can, should. And I think a government should do what they can to encourage it and that includes Rudd's proposed model of withholding child benefit (although I'm not a fan of the man himself). I'm not keen on access to state education being withheld because that's tantamount to making it mandatory, but I'd be happy to see private nurseries/childminders insisting on it. My child is vaccinated so non vax children pose minimal threat to her.

When it comes to the legal side, I remember the "Law and Order" episode referred to in the article and it was a very interesting show. I could definitely see both sides. For me the simple act of non vaccination isn't enough to make someone liable, I would only be happier to see a case being successful if the endangerment went beyond that and was malicious or reckless, as it has been in cases where someone has deliberately infected a wide group of people with HIV. So if a mother knew her non vaxed child has measles and took them out to somewhere there were a lot of vulnerable children, sure there is a liability, but if a child developed the disease and was kept at home but may have infected children before the mother knew then no, I believe a liability case would be a step too far. Having said that, I live in a country where healthcare is free at the point of use. I don't know if I would feel differently if I were left with massive medical bills, or if my child was seriously disabled or killed by a disease. I do know if the disability Abby has was caused by a disease passed to her by a non vaxed child, I would be incredibly angry at the parent who did that and would want some action taken. Not sure what though'

 

[pinklightbulb]

I think Rudd is a complete waste of space-- he has cost this country millions and will do it again if he gets re-elected. The country's got more to worry about than him stripping tax benefits if he stays in office-- that's the least of our worries about him, lol! At least the Coalition is promising paid maternity leave for 26 weeks, including paternity pay for 2 weeks, which is better than the pittance working mothers get at the moment. Rudd couldn't give a shit about families, vaxing or not, working or not. He is more interested in wasting money offshore or on useless ventures that send the country broke, and using the tax we pay to do so, so no doubt he will use the money he withholds from non-vaxing parents in a stupid fashion, as he has previously.

Under a Rudd Government, then a Gillard Government when she took over from him after Labor voted no-confidence in him a couple of years back (this is how useless the man is) this country has lost so much money it had under a Howard Government . We were one of the richest countries in the world under Howard. Any Labor Government in this country has sent Australia into financial deficit. Rudd becoming PM again would be nothing short of a disaster.

So that is why I don't agree with him and his supposed plan, because he isn't doing it for a good reason. He's doing it to suck up money that he has wasted, again from families that need this money, whether they vax or not-- we are still families struggling under a shocking government, so how dare he take more away from us than what he already has?

I still maintain that it is a breach of basic human rights to force parents to vax, which is what Kevin Rudd will effectively be doing to families who rely on the FTB. Australia has one of the highest costs of living in the world, and a lot of families depend on that extra help. Just because a parent makes an informed decision not to vax, why should Rudd capitalise on that? He will leave parents with no choice but to vax by default because they need the financial help, compromising their human rights to make their own decisions about their children. It will raise the number of vaccinated children, but for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Natsku]

I think Rudd is a complete waste of space-- he has cost this country millions and will do it again if he gets re-elected. The country's got more to worry about than him stripping tax benefits if he stays in office-- that's the least of our worries about him, lol! At least the Coalition is promising paid maternity leave for 26 weeks, including paternity pay for 2 weeks, which is better than the pittance working mothers get at the moment. Rudd couldn't give a shit about families, vaxing or not, working or not. He is more interested in wasting money offshore or on useless ventures that send the country broke, and using the tax we pay to do so, so no doubt he will use the money he withholds from non-vaxing parents in a stupid fashion, as he has previously.

Under a Rudd Government, then a Gillard Government when she took over from him after Labor voted no-confidence in him a couple of years back (this is how useless the man is) this country has lost so much money it had under a Howard Government . We were one of the richest countries in the world under Howard. Any Labor Government in this country has sent Australia into financial deficit. Rudd becoming PM again would be nothing short of a disaster.

So that is why I don't agree with him and his supposed plan, because he isn't doing it for a good reason. He's doing it to suck up money that he has wasted, again from families that need this money, whether they vax or not-- we are still families struggling under a shocking government, so how dare he take more away from us than what he already has?

I still maintain that it is a breach of basic human rights to force parents to vax, which is what Kevin Rudd will effectively be doing to families who rely on the FTB. Australia has one of the highest costs of living in the world, and a lot of families depend on that extra help. Just because a parent makes an informed decision not to vax, why should Rudd capitalise on that? He will leave parents with no choice but to vax by default because they need the financial help, compromising their human rights to make their own decisions about their children. It will raise the number of vaccinated children, but for all the wrong reasons.

What I think would be better is to offer bonuses to parents who do vaccinate. Encourage rather than punish. Then non-vaccinating parents aren't losing any of the money but vaccinating parents are gaining extra (which is right because they are saving money for the healthcare system as whole)

 

[PepsiChic]

I think all who can, should. And I think a government should do what they can to encourage it and that includes Rudd's proposed model of withholding child benefit (although I'm not a fan of the man himself). I'm not keen on access to state education being withheld because that's tantamount to making it mandatory, but I'd be happy to see private nurseries/childminders insisting on it. My child is vaccinated so non vax children pose minimal threat to her.

As far as Im aware, most schools here in the US require your child to be upto date with vaccines to attend....there are exemption rules, and I believe if you have grounds for not vaccinating your child then they will accept that. but for the most part yo have to be able to show your childs vaccination record is up to date.

Required Vaccine list for kindergarten - to grade12
https://eziz.org/assets/docs/IMM-231.pdf

There is an "Exemption" part too.

 

[MommyJogger]

I think all who can, should. And I think a government should do what they can to encourage it and that includes Rudd's proposed model of withholding child benefit (although I'm not a fan of the man himself). I'm not keen on access to state education being withheld because that's tantamount to making it mandatory, but I'd be happy to see private nurseries/childminders insisting on it. My child is vaccinated so non vax children pose minimal threat to her.

As far as Im aware, most schools here in the US require your child to be upto date with vaccines to attend....there are exemption rules, and I believe if you have grounds for not vaccinating your child then they will accept that. but for the most part yo have to be able to show your childs vaccination record is up to date.

Required Vaccine list for kindergarten - to grade12
https://eziz.org/assets/docs/IMM-231.pdf

There is an "Exemption" part too.

It might differ by state, but all you have to do to get out of it is to sign a waiver here stating you understand that your child is at risk for said diseases and are opting out of vaccinations.

 

[Foogirl]

As I said I'm no fan of Rudd. I don't accept withholding benefits forces anyone to do anything. If a non vaxer feels their principled stance in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence is so important, they'll just have to find someone else to give them a handout. And if someone is going to change their stance for the sake of a few pounds a week them they can't be too principled in that stance.

I don't think doing an incentive would be any different, you'd still get non vaxers whinging they are being forced in to it because they need the money.

I knew there was a system in the US for vaxing before being allowed in school, but I always had the impression it was easy to get out of.

For me the difference is education is a right, benefits are not.

 

[pinklightbulb]

I'm not anti-vax, either. My sons are about to begin their roster, very delayed, but they are starting it now I'm not with FOB and he can't do anything about it (he was the anti, not me).

I don't agree with stripping benefits, though, because as I said, the cost of living is already so stupid that it's unbelievable and a LOT of families rely on that "handout". FTB is means-tested to a degree, but a lot of families, not just those on benefits, are eligible to receive fortnightly payments or a lump sum at tax time. I don't think it's right to remove it from ANY family, because vaxing or not, in this current economic climate, we are all struggling to make ends meet.

The unemployment rate in my state is 8.4%, and we also lag behind in comparative income to the rest of the country (I am in Tasmania), where the average salary is a lot less, to give you an idea of how many families are relying on help from the government, because it has screwed this country so badly. What are these families (me included) and others below the cut-off point to be eligible for FTB going to do without it, when they have come to NEED it, not just expect it?

I don't think the children should be taken away from for the parent's choices, and they will be if this payment gets reduced or removed from non-vaxing parents. It is, after all, still the child missing out at the end of the day, because FTB payments are FOR them

And it isn't just a few pounds a week, either. I receive both parts of FTB and it makes up half of my Single Parenting Payment from Centrelink.

 

[Itsychik]

Just an alternative insight to the initial link:

https://violentmetaphors.com/2013/0...ian-knows-more-than-the-university-of-google/

 

[Sarahkka]

I agree with those who feel that education and incentives would probably be more effective and farther-reaching (if the end goal is to achieve higher vaccination rates). While I can certainly appreciate the frustration of parents who see an increase in risk to their vulnerable children (very young babies and those medically unsuitable for vaccination) from a movement based on pseudo-science and emotions, I don't think I agree with legally forcing anyone to comply. And I highly doubt that such a move would help to combat the scientific ignorance or the fear that seems to generate the anti-vax movement. It would most likely just fan the flames and make the rhetoric and histrionics even worse.
If the end goal is vaccination for all, then I think that the most effective means is grass-roots, parent-led education. Clear rebuttals and explanations provided whenever we hear the misinformation being spread. Coming from peers rather than authority figures. I think that is what is going to be the most effective in the long run. If the happy side effect of that is improving the overall critical faculty and scientific literacy of the general population, well, I wouldn't complain!

 

[JessPape]

The issue I have with vaccinations is, they are never 100% effective. A lot of the viruses that are going around today are also targeting vaccinated children. Why? Because the virus has changed forms, and sadly they can't keep up, or produce vaccinations fast enought to stop this..... Now I'm not anti-vaccination, however I really feel like vaccinating ony does half the job. The other half needs to come from practicing good hygenie, staying home when ill, and making sure you keep your body in tip top shape. Not saying that will save your life either, but it never amazes me a how many people walk out of public washrooms without washing their hands. I don't think any parent should be forced to vaccinate, I believe we should all be given real information regarding what's in the shot, effects serious, long term, and short term.. We should be able to read the results f deaths that were in the testing period, and be able to make an informed choice on what s best for our families.

 

[Foogirl]

Vaccination does more than half the job, and a vaccinated child is highly unlikely to suffer many ill effects when contracting something they are vaccinated against. Epidemics are far less likely in a vaccinated community too.

But you are absolutely right on hygiene. The number of communicable diseases contracted by poor hygiene is huge. Things like hand foot and mouth, Norovirus and even the common cold spread like wildfire. I personally see vaccination as part of a toolkit to keep people healthy.

 

[Dragonfly]

I always say if you dont want your choices removed its not ok to support others having them removed, Where will that end? some kids cant get vaccines for medical reasons also. It really does open a can of worms.

 

[Foogirl]

I have never heard a pro vaccination voice say that those with a medical issue should still be vaccinated.

 

[Dragonfly]

I have several times. Apparently a bit of vaccine reaction and permanent damage outweighs the dangers of the illness and is better than others getting ill from unvaxed child . I cant think why someone would say that either but I have seen it said. Someone once said to me that I should take them to hospital to get vaccinated in a controlled environment so when they react they can do something. Even my own doc wouldnt agree to that one. Ps not anti or pro vax. Before any one tears me up.

 

[Foogirl]

I have several times. Apparently a bit of vaccine reaction and permanent damage outweighs the dangers of the illness and is better than others getting ill from unvaxed child . I cant think why someone would say that either but I have seen it said. Someone once said to me that I should take them to hospital to get vaccinated in a controlled environment so when they react they can do something. Even my own doc wouldnt agree to that one. Ps not anti or pro vax. Before any one tears me up.

That's ridiculous.

At least if this were to make it into any legislation, medical exemptions would count, just as they do for school entry and will for the benefits reduction too.