[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

We fundamentally disagree on where that ends though Ammi. In an ideal world we can "pick and choose" our freedoms but that's never how it's going to work. Either you fight to protect autonomy and the basic right of people to make their own decisions, or you accept that all of these decisions are ultimately in the hands of a higher authority.

I will never agree that the latter is the better option, and I think a "half way" choice with "exceptions" is naive. If you accept giving the authorities the right to make one medical decision for yourself and your family, you accept the path where the authorities make all medical decisions for all families.

Vaccinating is the right choice but no one is ever going to convince me that the choice should be taken away.

...but then this ‘choice’ is not made about us as adults, TS...what if every parent or a majority of parents said...no!!...we won’t inoculate, it’s our child and our choice...the Western world regresses into many child deaths and we as parents felt it was our right to decide on the potential life or death of our child..?...I really do think it’s a complicated thing to consider tbh...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...but then this ‘choice’ is not made about us as adults, TS...what if every parent or a majority of parents said...no!!...we won’t inoculate, it’s our child and our choice...the Western world regresses into many child deaths and we as parents felt it was our right to decide on the potential life or death of our child..?...I really do think it’s a complicated thing to consider tbh...

It is complicated but it's not something I haven't given significant thought or that I say flippantly. We have to protect our right to freedom and autonomy tooth and nail, the world's systems of authority - and certainly those in the US, and here in the UK - have done absolutely NOTHING that suggests we should give them such implicit trust that we hand over such fundamental decisions to them. Maybe in another, much better, world it would be safe to do that but not in this one.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It is complicated but it's not something I haven't given significant thought or that I say flippantly. We have to protect our right to freedom and autonomy tooth and nail, the world's systems of authority - and certainly those in the US, and here in the UK - have done absolutely NOTHING that suggests we should give them such implicit trust that we hand over such fundamental decisions to them. Maybe in another, much better, world it would be safe to do that but not in this one.

...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...

[user104658]

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.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

...with measles isn’t it something like a one in twenty ration of complications occurring in children under 5 yrs old..?...that isn’t a scare tactic TS, that’s a terrifying percentage to take a risk of a child contracting the disease through not being given an inoculation...of course, a complication won’t necessarily be life threatening, I understand that...but some of the complications like pneumonia are obviously life threatening ...and also these complications can lead to life long disabilities...I mean most parents do opt for the vaccination because the risks of not having it far outweigh the risks of having it and some there being a life endangering reaction...

...guardianship of our children surely works to safeguard them, to make decisions for them...(..until they of an age to make their own life decisions..)...which we feel will keep them safe, which will preserve and protect their lives as best we can...refusing a vaccination which counters those things...(...without very specific medical reasons, not just worries etc..).. is surely putting a child at risk...

[Ammi]

...and that’s horrifying to me...we don’t ‘own’ our children, we guard them ...we preserve and we protect them ...if all parents said NO because my choice etc then we’re participating in spreading disease which could fill hospitals/medical centres to capacities that could never be sustained...