• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Governments Do More to Counter the Anti-Vaccine Movement (1 Viewer)

Should Governments Do More to Counter the Anti-Vaccine Movement?


  • Total voters
    44

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
16,548
Reaction score
8,273
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
In light of events like a measles outbreak in Washington state or the EU. Do you think that governments need to start doing more to counter the anti-vaccination movement and their pseudoscience lies? If so, what measures do you think they should take: legislation, more fact-based myth-debunking awareness campaigns, or fear and shock based campaigns like anti-smoking ads, more then one? If not, why not?

I think they need all three, use legislation to eliminate exemptions (should be all but medical) though that may be difficult so in the mean time launch campaigns from both angles, fact-based to debunk myths, and fear to provide a much stronger emotional push to vaccinate. This opinion piece from the CBC highlights why a fear campaign to encourage vaccination would work. Have pamphlets, commercials, whatever showing children suffering or dead from these diseases, show them what happens when you do not vaccinate.
 
I'm not convinced there's anything more they can do that is actually effective and isn't going to hurt kids more than it helps them.
 
yes. i support legislation. if you want to be an anti-vax woo woo, it should be inconvenient.
 
Last edited:
In light of events like a measles outbreak in Washington state or the EU. Do you think that governments need to start doing more to counter the anti-vaccination movement and their pseudoscience lies? If so, what measures do you think they should take: legislation, more fact-based myth-debunking awareness campaigns, or fear and shock based campaigns like anti-smoking ads, more then one? If not, why not?

I think they need all three, use legislation to eliminate exemptions (should be all but medical) though that may be difficult so in the mean time launch campaigns from both angles, fact-based to debunk myths, and fear to provide a much stronger emotional push to vaccinate. This opinion piece from the CBC highlights why a fear campaign to encourage vaccination would work. Have pamphlets, commercials, whatever showing children suffering or dead from these diseases, show them what happens when you do not vaccinate.

No. Vaccines are fine in principle but parents should be willing and able to refuse those that they think unnecessary and to be able to get alternative formulations that do not have heavy metals formaldehydes exedra to minimize risks. I do not oppose vaccination I do oppose unnecessary and one size fits all programs especially when said programs accelerate and compact schedules unduly and push more vaccines than necessary. A slow methodical program that makes sure the immune system has recovered sufficiently to continue vaccinating is prefered. This is done though testing and observation. A specialist working with the parents would be a best case scenario especially if they can formulate custom vaccine programs and formulations. We do this for animals we sure as hell can do it for our children.

Further many vaccines do not have and are not required to have as extensive medical trials as medications and therefor are not nearly as well tested or known as most medications.

Parents should be fully informed of all risks associated with vaccines both pro and con and allowed to make the decision on their own. Most parents will likely choose to vaccinate, more over if completely informed will do so conservatively to cover those diseases that are debilitating and little else.
 
No. Vaccines are fine in principle but parents should be willing and able to refuse those that they think unnecessary and to be able to get alternative formulations that do not have heavy metals formaldehydes exedra to minimize risks. I do not oppose vaccination I do oppose unnecessary and one size fits all programs especially when said programs accelerate and compact schedules unduly and push more vaccines than necessary. A slow methodical program that makes sure the immune system has recovered sufficiently to continue vaccinating is prefered. This is done though testing and observation. A specialist working with the parents would be a best case scenario especially if they can formulate custom vaccine programs and formulations. We do this for animals we sure as hell can do it for our children.

Further many vaccines do not have and are not required to have as extensive medical trials as medications and therefor are not nearly as well tested or known as most medications.

Parents should be fully informed of all risks associated with vaccines both pro and con and allowed to make the decision on their own. Most parents will likely choose to vaccinate, more over if completely informed will do so conservatively to cover those diseases that are debilitating and little else.

Then do you not agree that much more effort should be taken to both debunk myths and strike fear into these parents of what happens when they don't? We cannot rely on parents to make the correct decision as we have already witnessed many times the past few years. Vaccination does not only affect them but others as well.
 
Then do you not agree that much more effort should be taken to both debunk myths and strike fear into these parents of what happens when they don't? We cannot rely on parents to make the correct decision as we have already witnessed many times the past few years. Vaccination does not only affect them but others as well.

First lets get something straight. Nobody has ANY obligations to you or yours. None. The only reason one would subject their children to vaccination would be to attempt to mitigate or eliminate the effects of such diseases to the children in question. The herd immunity is simply side benefit. Parents before they vaccinate their children, if they vaccinate their children, should be FULLY informed, just like any other major medically procedure. Pros and cons risks and rewards. This decision is theirs and theirs alone. Period. It is not my or your place to interfere. If you think you do and decide to push the issue, then you'll have a fight on your hands, deservedly so I might add. Vaccinations are NOT to be undertaken lightly. They need to be carefully considered. Vaccines are not simple. There are consequences that can be substantial with their usage or the lack thereof.
 
First lets get something straight. Nobody has ANY obligations to you or yours. None. The only reason one would subject their children to vaccination would be to attempt to mitigate or eliminate the effects of such diseases to the children in question. The herd immunity is simply side benefit. Parents before they vaccinate their children, if they vaccinate their children, should be FULLY informed, just like any other major medically procedure. Pros and cons risks and rewards. This decision is theirs and theirs alone. Period. It is not my or your place to interfere. If you think you do and decide to push the issue, then you'll have a fight on your hands, deservedly so I might add. Vaccinations are NOT to be undertaken lightly. They need to be carefully considered. Vaccines are not simple. There are consequences that can be substantial with their usage or the lack thereof.

Sometimes the interests of society outweigh those of the individual, this is one of those cases, it is not only the children at risk but the community as well. Not vaccinating your child is child endangerment. Children die because vaccines are seen as a choice.
 
In light of events like a measles outbreak in Washington state or the EU. Do you think that governments need to start doing more to counter the anti-vaccination movement and their pseudoscience lies? If so, what measures do you think they should take: legislation, more fact-based myth-debunking awareness campaigns, or fear and shock based campaigns like anti-smoking ads, more then one? If not, why not?

I think they need all three, use legislation to eliminate exemptions (should be all but medical) though that may be difficult so in the mean time launch campaigns from both angles, fact-based to debunk myths, and fear to provide a much stronger emotional push to vaccinate. This opinion piece from the CBC highlights why a fear campaign to encourage vaccination would work. Have pamphlets, commercials, whatever showing children suffering or dead from these diseases, show them what happens when you do not vaccinate.

Which Governments?
 
Sometimes the interests of society outweigh those of the individual, this is one of those cases, it is not only the children at risk but the community as well. Not vaccinating your child is child endangerment.

Your family has no greater rights than mine. My family owes your family NOTHING. Your family owes mine NOTHING. Not vaccinating a child is not child endangerment. Parents have the final say on whether their children should be vaccinated and if so how. As should be. I sure hell didnt brook other people interfering in the rearing of my children whether they are "authorities" or not. I dont begrudge other parents that right to rear their children as they see fit, either.
 
In light of events like a measles outbreak in Washington state or the EU. Do you think that governments need to start doing more to counter the anti-vaccination movement and their pseudoscience lies? If so, what measures do you think they should take: legislation, more fact-based myth-debunking awareness campaigns, or fear and shock based campaigns like anti-smoking ads, more then one? If not, why not?

I think they need all three, use legislation to eliminate exemptions (should be all but medical) though that may be difficult so in the mean time launch campaigns from both angles, fact-based to debunk myths, and fear to provide a much stronger emotional push to vaccinate. This opinion piece from the CBC highlights why a fear campaign to encourage vaccination would work. Have pamphlets, commercials, whatever showing children suffering or dead from these diseases, show them what happens when you do not vaccinate.

Red:
The gov't should round up all those anti-vaccine (AV) nuts and quarantine them somewhere with folks who're infected with the viruses for which the AV people refuse to get vaccinated, and let natural selection handle it from there.
 
Who here is old enough to remember lining up for a sugar cube in a Dixie cup laced with the polio vaccine of Sabin or Salk?
 
If you don't want to vaccinate your kids, fine. But your kid shouldn't be allowed in schools, supermarkets, or anywhere in public because you're putting others at risk. When you do that your rights supersede others' rights for their child to not be infected by yours.
 
No. Vaccines are fine in principle but parents should be willing and able to refuse those that they think unnecessary and to be able to get alternative formulations that do not have heavy metals formaldehydes exedra to minimize risks. I do not oppose vaccination I do oppose unnecessary and one size fits all programs especially when said programs accelerate and compact schedules unduly and push more vaccines than necessary. A slow methodical program that makes sure the immune system has recovered sufficiently to continue vaccinating is prefered. This is done though testing and observation. A specialist working with the parents would be a best case scenario especially if they can formulate custom vaccine programs and formulations. We do this for animals we sure as hell can do it for our children.

Further many vaccines do not have and are not required to have as extensive medical trials as medications and therefor are not nearly as well tested or known as most medications.

Parents should be fully informed of all risks associated with vaccines both pro and con and allowed to make the decision on their own. Most parents will likely choose to vaccinate, more over if completely informed will do so conservatively to cover those diseases that are debilitating and little else.

That is not true and a good example of why parents do not know better than medical professionals. It is best to give children all of their vaccines at once before they have a chance to get sick while unprotected.
 
First lets get something straight. Nobody has ANY obligations to you or yours. None. The only reason one would subject their children to vaccination would be to attempt to mitigate or eliminate the effects of such diseases to the children in question. The herd immunity is simply side benefit. Parents before they vaccinate their children, if they vaccinate their children, should be FULLY informed, just like any other major medically procedure. Pros and cons risks and rewards. This decision is theirs and theirs alone. Period. It is not my or your place to interfere. If you think you do and decide to push the issue, then you'll have a fight on your hands, deservedly so I might add. Vaccinations are NOT to be undertaken lightly. They need to be carefully considered. Vaccines are not simple. There are consequences that can be substantial with their usage or the lack thereof.

Fully informed should be between them and their doctor based on peer reviewed studies and evidence published in respected medical journals, not **** they read on the internet.
 
If you don't want to vaccinate your kids, fine. But your kid shouldn't be allowed in schools, supermarkets, or anywhere in public because you're putting others at risk. When you do that your rights supersede others' rights for their child to not be infected by yours.

I fully agree with this, and you should be subject to civil liability for anyone your unvaccinated child infects.
 
Your family has no greater rights than mine. My family owes your family NOTHING. Your family owes mine NOTHING. Not vaccinating a child is not child endangerment. Parents have the final say on whether their children should be vaccinated and if so how. As should be. I sure hell didnt brook other people interfering in the rearing of my children whether they are "authorities" or not. I dont begrudge other parents that right to rear their children as they see fit, either.

Except when your kid infects another kid that is temporarily immune suppressed due to a variety of medical reasons, like cancer for example, then you should be held liable in civil court. If people had to face losing all their assets should their unvaccinated kid infect some kid undergoing chemo, I suspect they would be far more likely to listen to their doctor than to base their medical decisions on stupid **** they read on the internet.

I will take it a step further, say you don't want your daughter to have the gardasil vaccine against HPV. If she get's cervical cancer at any point in her life, her medical insurer should be able to come back and sue you to recoup their costs in paying for her cancer treatments for what would have been completely preventable with the vaccine.
 
Should Governments Do More to Counter the Anti-Vaccine Movement? :think:

A person's right to the complete control over their own body should be sacrosanct. :no:

The only time someone should be "required" to be vaccinated is if they sign a contract of service knowing (as with joining the military) that they give up this right as a term of such service.
 
A person's right to the complete control over their own body should be sacrosanct.

The only time someone should be "required" to be vaccinated is if they sign a contract of service knowing (as with joining the military) that they give up this right as a term of such service.

You don't own your kids.
 
You don't own your kids.

Yes, IMO you do when it comes to choices about such things. Right up until they become adults OR your rights are removed due to proven child abuse.

They certainly don't belong to the STATE, unless you support totalitarianism?

Now if you don't want them to attend public schools unless they are vaccinated? Well and good. Then the parents can either home school or private school them. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
You shut this stupidity down by making parents financially liable for their stupidity in not vaccinating their kids. If I injure someone through my own negligence, their medical insurer can come back and sue me to recoup their expenses in paying for that treatment. Anti-vax idiots should be subject to the same civil liabilities.

Say you forgo a vaccination for a vaccine preventable disease, fine, that is your choice, but if your kid then infects a kid that is immune suppressed and dependent on others being vaccinated, they should be able to come back and sue you.

Say you forgo gardasil, the vaccine against HPV, literally a vaccine against cancer, fine that is your choice, but if your kid gets cervical cancer one day, BCBS or whoever their insurer is should be able to come back and sue you to recoup the costs of cancer treatment as it is a cost you are fully negligent for by your refusal to vaccinate.

These antivax idiots would not even be able to get a homeowners policy if we made their stupid decisions subject to the same civil liabilities that other stupid decisions are.
 
No. Vaccines are fine in principle but parents should be willing and able to refuse those that they think unnecessary and to be able to get alternative formulations that do not have heavy metals formaldehydes exedra to minimize risks.
No, parents should not. They should have the right to consult Drs and have them determine the risk to their child. And if there is no risk found, the kids should be vaccinated OR not allowed to attend public schools (at minimum).

As if parents 'know better' on this medical issue :roll: How do you think the current epidemics started?

As for 'alternative' formulas...dont parents have access to those now?
 
Yes, IMO you do when it comes to choices about such things. Right up until they become adults OR your rights are removed due to proven child abuse.

They certainly don't belong to the STATE, unless you support totalitarianism?

From a legal point of view, you are your child's guardian, you cannot own another human being. The state does not own them, you do not own them, you are merely a legal guardian of them. For example, I cannot make the choice to stop feeding my kids because I have the religious belief that god will provide for them. I cannot make the choice to deny my kid life saving care because I have some belief that it is unnecessary.
 

Parents should be fully informed of all risks associated with vaccines both pro and con
and allowed to make the decision on their own. Most parents will likely choose to vaccinate, more over if completely informed will do so conservatively to cover those diseases that are debilitating and little else.

What's stopping them?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom