Quote:
Originally Posted by Ammi
...of course, we do have to try to protect our freedoms and our children’s freedoms...but do we ever have the right to deny them of something when in doing so could significantly increase their risks to diseases which at worst could end their life as well as possibly leaving lifetime disabilities...if a parent chose to deliberately go against medical advice with something so serious as someone else’s life....?...then should the decision really remain with them..?...this surely is when in the past, courts have intervened...
|
But that's over-emphasising the risks associated with childhood illness and relying on scare tactics in order to push through something mandatory when it should remain strictly voluntary. Again, this hinges on the (IMO naive) idea that it's a self-contained concession of autonomy.
The current vaccine schedule is reasonable and effective and everyone SHOULD adhere to it voluntarily. What if we give away our right to choose, and then in a year's time some government department decides to add in 10 new vaccines for relatively low risk illnesses, and some of the research puts a question mark over how safe or effective the new ones are? What if we THEN decide "Oh I'm not sure about all of these?". Well, tough **** you gave away the right to make that assessment, and your kids will be forcibly taken from you if you fail to comply.
Its horrifying!
I don't know how anyone can believe otherwise, unless they truly believe that giving away that right would be limited to the current vaccine schedule. Or even just vaccines. That's not how it works, and that's not how guardianship works. You sign away the right to make that decision and you sign away all of your medical decisions. You sign away your right to make that decision for your children and you sign away parental guardianship in favour of state guardianship. It's not a pick'n'mix.