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?

[Buffy]

You've packed an awful lot into your topic, but I'm going to comment on only one for now because (since I've got a teacher in the house), it's a major pet peeve of mine:

 

 

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?

 

Taxes to fund schools are levied on ALL taxpayers in order to fund schools. This is not an insurance program like Social Security or Medicare. Thus *many* people don't "use" the schools: old people, people who choose not to have kids, or those not capable of having them. Why are people who "choose" not to vaccinate their kids and thus become ineligible to send their kids to public school suddenly worthy of getting a rebate on tax dollars they're not "using?"

 

That's not how taxes work. 

 

Taxes support the general welfare and provide infrastructure that benefits society as a whole in indirect effects, in this case by providing an educated workforce that is capable of providing more sophisticated skills to support for-profit and non-profit organizations that drive the economy.

 

You don't get a rebate on this government investment in society simply because you don't use it. 

 

Besides, any parent will tell you that it's a rare school these days that does not ask it's parents to pay for all sorts of things because greedy folks insist on not fully funding schools because...they don't "use" them.

 

It's a great example of people thinking they "deserve" more than other people because they're morally superior. That gets into the root motivations that some of these anti-vaxers have: it's not so much their "sincerely held beliefs," but more the desire to be smarter, more moral, martyrs, etc.

 

The same argument is used by people who want to get vouchers for their religious schools, and they are similarly unjustified in their arguments.

 

Anti-vaxers are way out of line on so many topics, but this one of the least supportable and obviously so.

 

 

Our greatest responsibility is to be good ancestors, :phones:

Buffy

[sanctus]

I am for freedom interpretation quoted a bit everywhere (at least where I come from): your freedom stops where the freedom of others starts.

Putting it in this anti-vax perspective: if a family decides to bring up their kids vegan, I do not care (if they really watch out, what all my vegan friends actually do, the kid is gonna be equally healthy) because they are not putting other kids at risk by choosing vegan. If they do not vaccinate on the other hand then they do put others at risk hence their freedom of choice stops. So yes they should either go live fr away from civilization or vaccinate. So yeah, for making a toddler die because he caught the whooping cough from their unvaccinated kid should be  charged.

 

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

Imagine a parent decides to make their kids smoke because then they relax and sleep better (which is bs) and is genuinly convinced it makes them rest better so they are gonna be more hesalthy. In this case would you even ask that question?

[exchemist]

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?

I think it is just fine as it is. Anti-vaxxers are borderline antisocial towards the community because they lower herd immunity and make it easier for epidemics to start. It is perfectly reasonable that schools, in particular, require vaccinations since schools are one of the principal places where cross infection in the community occurs. There is abundant scientific evidence for this and for the efficacy of vaccines in preventing epidemics.

 

The fact that science is not infallible does not in the least weaken the validity of these expectations, placed by the authorities on members of society.  Every decision, by every public or private body or individual, is based on imperfect information. Everyone has to do the best they can with what they have. And all members of society have obligations towards that society, as well as rights. 

 

But society is tolerant enough towards antisocial members not generally to punish them for acts or omissions that do not directly cause identifiable harm to identifiable individuals. And anti-vaxxers are good at kicking up a stink, which is a bore and wastes public resources. So they are tolerated, so long as the numbers of them are not so great as to pose a huge risk to public health.