Should not vaccinating your child be a criminal offence?

[Coveny]

There is a lot of misinformation on the internet that references “studies” that have been debunked my science. There is also the fact that science isn’t infallible and has history has shown what science believe to be good for you today, could later turn out to be bad for you. I believe in this case vaccines have proven they work, and they are good science, but their effectiveness means that the risk is much lower to be exposed and therefore need the vaccine is lower as well.
 
We’ve recently seen cases of preventable illness come back into America after years without a case. I’m a supporter of freedom, but I want what’s best for our society as well. Laws about seatbelts statistically save lives, but this is forcing people to do things against their will for society and their own “good”. How can we call it freedom if we don’t have the choice to make bad decisions? Freedom isn’t defined by a Stepford wife following along because she’s programed to, freedom is defined by doing things like drinking, smoking, gambling, etc that many disagree with. Where is the line in the sand on freedom?
 
Many public schools require immunization of children or they won’t accept them. These people are paying their taxes for services they cannot use. Should they get a tax break? Is that fair? Is it ethical to take away services paid for simply because you don’t agree with the way the person using it acts? And if it’s based more on the danger the unimmunized child presents what’s the liability?
 
Should we charge anti-vaxxer parents with assault or murder if they cause an outbreak? They generally live in communities, is the whole community to blame? How do we decide (if we agree there should be punishment) who and how much is justified? And what about their own children?
 
Is it moral to punish a parent for doing what they believe will help even if the end result hurts their child? I don’t know of a single parent who hasn’t felt like they’ve made some bad decisions in raising their children. It’s not like we received a handbook, and even if we did no one would have time to read it. As it requires more and more time to simply “get by” economically, how much of this is societies fault, and how much is simply a case of not having the time and money to do your due diligence?

[The Valkyrie]

Good post.

To answer the first question posed: Yes.

[Chad32]

It could easily be seen as a form of neglect. And it effects every other kid that this kid comes into contact with. Maybe not give them major prison time, but definitely a fine or something.

[Minimalist]

Some good questions there but ultimately it comes down to the limit of freedom. 

Forgetting vaccines for the moment, should someone be permitted to drive 120 going the wrong way on a one way road?  WTH, he's just exercising freedom, isn't he?  Or stick a gun out of his window and fire away... oh, wait.  That happens all the time.

Part of the cost of living in a society is having to forego some freedom.

[Edwardo Piet]

It should be considered childhood neglect. So should refusing your children blood transplants because it's your 'religion'. It should absolutely be illegal.

[Whateverist]

They should be infected with a deadly disease and left to live their lives out on an island colony for the damned.

[Cecelia]

These people are paying their taxes for services they cannot use. 

No, they're paying taxes for services they don't personally use by choice.

Do I get a tax refund for roads I don't drive on?  Of course not.  I don't drive on them by choice.  Furthermore, those roads allow companies to ship items to stores where I buy items.  So even though I don't personally use them (by choice) I still benefit from them.

Just like people benefit from Public Education, even if they don't personally have kids or if they don't indeed send their kids to public schools.  Many of our doctors learned to read and write thanks to public schools.  Got into college thanks to public schools, and therefore got into medical school.  Also I imagine that if there were no public education society would not be a very livable place.  (Many of the workers got where they are thanks to receiving a public education.  Without them, imagine where most of us would be!)

If they have children, and want to send their kids to public schools they absolutely can.  Why wouldn't they be able to?  All they have to do is get their children vaccinated.  They CHOSE not to get vaccinated, just like I CHOSE not to drive on those specific roads.
Not Vaccinating your child can be tantamount to abuse -- except in cases where there's a medical reason they can't receive the vaccine.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is a lot of misinformation on the internet that references “studies” that have been debunked my science. There is also the fact that science isn’t infallible and has history has shown what science believe to be good for you today, could later turn out to be bad for you. I believe in this case vaccines have proven they work, and they are good science, but their effectiveness means that the risk is much lower to be exposed and therefore need the vaccine is lower as well.

This paragraph is diminished by the following paragraph (RE outbreaks).  The threshold for the breakdown of herd immunity isn't nearly as low as some imagine it to be..and it varies from disease to disease....and that's just counting the diseases that herd immunity protects against, which isn't all of them.  There are already states that have fallen well below safe herd immunity thresholds for a variety of preventable diseases.  The risk is not lower, today, it's higher than it was a decade ago - therefore the need for specific vaccines is higher. 

This is directly due to the success of anti-vax campaigns who..when they can't outright convince a parent that vaccination is bad for their kid..settle for the notion that they don't need it.   It isn't, and they do.  

  
Where is the line in the sand on freedom?

Where it's always been.  
 

Should they get a tax break? Is that fair? 

I pay taxes for services I don't use as well, so yeah..it's fair.
 

Should we charge anti-vaxxer parents with assault or murder if they cause an outbreak? 

No. 
 

Is it moral to punish a parent for doing what they believe will help even if the end result hurts their child?

Probably, but I think you're angling for "legal"..in which case..definitely..we do it all the time.

I don’t know of a single parent who hasn’t felt like they’ve made some bad decisions in raising their children. It’s not like we received a handbook, and even if we did no one would have time to read it. As it requires more and more time to simply “get by” economically, how much of this is societies fault, and how much is simply a case of not having the time and money to do your due diligence?

 IKR, I missed my youngests vax schedule, the health dept called and notified me.  I took him to the health dept.  Took all of 20 minutes and didn't cost me a dime. Fair trade, I think, for immunity to diseases that have a history of killing kids like it was their job. If a parent doesn't have the time or money for that...vaccination is going to be the least of that kids worries growing up.

[brewer]

To lazy to address this all again so I'll copy/paste my debate responses from this thread: https://atheistforums.org/thread-35880.html  page 7
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I've copied and pasted parts of some of your posts (in black type). If you feel they are in error I am  willing to correct them if they need correction. My response in blue.

Referencing the OP link: “Did she have a good reason? Yes in my opinion she did [edit] she had a negative experience which is an indication that the healthcare service is inadequate." Opinion based on hearsay and very limited facts. I doubt that the MD only offered her pills. I don't believe there are not enough facts for either of us to come to an objective opinion. I will concede that she had fear/mistrust (justified or unjustified).


“But wait a second. We have (Australia) maybe 93-94% rate of childhood immunisation. Now compare that to say the fact that 20% of women in Australia report that they have experienced childhood sex abuse.” Off topic. Adds no value to the vaccination discussion.

"And I take issue with the statement that "children who don't get vaccinated put other children at risk". [edit]  2. No they don't, they just don't participate in herd protection." Actually yes they do. Children, vaccinated or not, are part of the herd. The non-vaccinated by choice would be considered an anti-participant/anti-protection/free rider. They have the potential to spread disease to other parts of the non-vaccinated herd (members of the herd/community without choice, children under 15 months, persons without immunity due to genetics, disease, disease treatment or old age. Again, please notice that these individuals have no choice). If infected and released into the herd they have the ability to transmit the disease directly or indirectly (produce a subclinical infection in the vaccinated who then have the ability to infect the members of the herd/community without choice).

"4. The so-called harm that people don't vaccinate their children is only a "potential" I agree. However it is a potential that society has deemed an unacceptable risk. That’s why there are vaccination schedules in both our countries.
 
"Immunisation is about preventing outbreaks, not individual cases. So this whole argument that parents are putting their own children at greater risk is not correct - they are putting the community at greater risk." This is incorrect, it is about both. Don’t think it’s about individuals? Have the child/parent/you take a trip to an endemic area with measles, cholera or yellow fever without being vaccinated and come into direct contact with the infected, taking no extra precautions. Look at the US and Aus requirements for individual vaccination when coming from another country with no proof of vaccination. Those individuals are given a choice, get the required vaccinations or don’t become part of this herd/society.
 
"Particularly that you shouldn't victim-blame people who have distrust in health services." I won’t blame them. However, they do have a choice, unlike other members of the herd/community. I will state that there should be societal consequences for their actions. The primary one (as stated in an earlier post) isolation. If the isolation is not complied with then other consequences should be enforced.

"Once you get to 95% it doesn't matter about the other 5%. [edit] There's no need to call it selfish, as long as 95% are immunised it doesn't matter whether the last 5% are or aren't. Individual cases do not matter. [edit] Vaccinating 95% or more of the total population provides the maximum possible protection." Herd protection position. Herd protection only applies when the herd remains static, relatively non-changing. In modern society with ability to travel outside the herd, the herd protection logic fails. The non-vaccinated that travel outside the herd (into areas where they become susceptible to infection) if infected then have the ability to bring the infection back to the members of the herd/community that are without choice. Again, this is why the US and Aus have vaccination protocols for individuals that travel to endemic areas. First to protect the individual while there, second to protect the disease from returning to the herd.

"If you want to blame anyone blame doctors, nurses, and pharmacists for not communicating the need to their patients effectively. [edit] They slip through the net often because they don't follow it up by getting advice from their GPs, and their GPs don't bother to actively engage their clients to get their children immunised. [edit] Is an indication that there's something wrong with healthcare delivery." Sounds like everyone is blaming. I agree that both sides have responsibilities. For vaccination, which is regulated by society, the parents/patients have the majority of responsibility. It is not feasible (physically/economically) for healthcare to contact every individual. If the parents/patients want to be a part of the herd/society (without limitations), it is their ultimate responsibility.

"Again this isn't "my view". I'm stating the conventional wisdom of the healthcare professionals." I read the two articles that were online. They are directed at healthcare in general, not vaccination specific. Healthcare in “general” is not a societal requirement, vaccination is (at least in US and Aus). If you can provide an article specific to vaccination I’ll be happy to read it. In fact I’ll provide one myself: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/rele...itancy/en/

My only point is that if an individual (or their children), for what ever reason (fear,ignorance,mistrust), knowingly elects to not get vaccinated then they need to be aware that they may not have all of the rights and privileges of those who do vaccinate. That there may/should be consequences. The first is voluntary isolation, restricted movement/contact, i.e. day care, public/private school participation, public transportation, public gathering places, public events (Disneyland comes to mind)....... If the individuals choose not to abide by the imposed isolation/restrictions, then the society needs a vehicle to have them enforced. The second, responsibility for damages caused by infecting others in society who don't have the ability to choose (legal-criminal or civil).

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If people don't want to have their kids vaccinated then the parents should be taken into a room and the doctor should have a set of syringes full of the contagious diseases. The parents are then asked if that's their final decision. If they say yes then they get injected with the contagious diseases and locked up in solitary confinement until they croak.