B.C. family furious teen vaccinated without parental consent

[Aladeen]

I don't consider it an individual right to be able to turn down vaccination unless there are legitimate hazards involved because others are put at risk because of your decisions

Well, for herd immunity to be in place a significant amount of people need to be vaccinated with a very small minority still susceptible. In a school in which majority of the children are not vaccinated, you don't see the mechanism because it's not a similar situation at all. Vaccinated individuals are probably minority in that case.

From Wikipedia:

Scenario two looks more likely in these communities.

You seem to contradict your two posts completely there Luci, how exactly does someone not getting immunized put others at risk? You clearly showed in your earlier post that those who get the vaccine are not going to be affected by those who are diseased.

Obviously those who are not getting vaccinated at this point are the minority across the board so why do you or anyone else for that matter give it a second thought when someone doesn't get vaccinated? That's on them. If they get the disease so what? If you're vaccinated you won't.

If its a religious thing, or a fear of needles or they just don't want it because they have a irrational suspicion against vaccine how does it affect the rest of us if they aren't vaccinated? People should have the right to do or not do what they want when it comes to their body. Just like they have the right to get a tattoo in a seedy tattoo parlour, I don't recommend it but it doesn't concern me if people do.

[Gurn]

"That being said, I don't consider it an individual right to be able to turn down vaccination unless there are legitimate hazards involved "

Thankfully you are not in charge. Leaving out the pro/con argument, your statement is the scariest thing I've seen in this thread. if your way of thinking had been followed back when Thalidamide was a "wonder cure" for morning sickness very few of us would be able to type on a keyboard due to birth defects like missing fingers, arms and in some cases legs.

[VanGnome]

I think what's being lost in all of this, is that the child in question claims to not have been asked if she was aware of any medical aversions to receiving the shot.

Children age 14 and older MAY be able to make an educated decision for themselves, but you cannot expect a 14 year old to have the wherewithal after being pulled from her class without prior notice and then browbeat into receiving a shot, to make such an educated decision.

No child knows their exact medical history, and certainly less so in times of duress. In fact, the child would NOT be able to make an educated decision without consulting first with her parents as ANY child would do when they don't know something.

We were all 14 at one point in time, can you say with absolute certainty that you would be able to make a potentially life threatening decision in a matter of 30 seconds without having any prior knowledge? These issues or topics are not at the forefront of an adolescent's mind.

I think it's pretty poor execution of policy on the part of the BC government. At minimum, they should have informed the school that they were going to be performing these shots (likely they did), which in turn should have prompted the school to distribute take home notices (not consent forms) for the children to have an opportunity to discuss with their parents so that when the time comes they are informed enough to make a decision.

If the government is going to create provisions to treat minors like adults in the capacity of decision making, then they are obligated to grant these children the courtesies extended to adults. From what it sounds like, this was more or less an ambush, where a child was coerced into accepting something they didn't know they had the option to decline.

If she had known, she could have always declined that day, spoken with her parents and if necessary visited their health care practitioner if it was deemed that they wanted her to have the booster shot, but they never afforded that opportunity in this scenario.

[VICanucksfan5551]

@5551 Wakefield's "article" was actually a case series. He never said that vaccines cause autism in the paper and his findings on bowel disturbances in autism have been replicated several times now. As I said, some of the garbage research done by the likes of Fombonne (a paid vaccine expert who testifies against witnesses and has been turfed out of McGill) and Thorsen (a wanted felon - for fraud up to a million) does not convince even a sharp 5th grader. Seriously. Read my post on some of these researchers about 10 posts back.

Also, to brush off vaccine adverse events as a "strawman" when there is only a passive surveillance system (most adverse events go unreported according to estimates) as well as limited p h y s i o l o g i c a l studies proving safety is a little disingenuous. Believe me, my relative was one of several in a Toronto hospital who were affected by GB due to the vaccine.

I am not against all vaccines, but I do think they need to be better safety studies, not just in an epidemiological way and they definitely seem to be throwing in too many combos giving parents littler choice all the time.

You do realize that "article" and "case series" aren't mutually exclusive, right? Any paper published in an academic journal is an article.

Wakefield's paper has been found to be fraudulent. It was fully retracted by The Lancet and the majority of his co-authors. While the paper itself never claimed a definitive link, Wakefield himself certainly did in public, which indirectly led to the deaths of many as MMR vaccination numbers dropped in the aftermath. Where are the replicated results of autistic enterocolitis? It has not been accepted as a disorder by the scientific community at large, and certainly not found to be linked to the MMR vaccine.

Attacking scientists personally (with often irrelevant points) does nothing to discredit their research. You also only scratched the surface of studies discrediting the MMR vaccine-autism link. Are all these scientists being paid off by "big pharma" or something? If there were flaws in the studies, their peers would tear them apart. I don't think you understand how rigorous a gauntlet the scientific process is. For the record, I didn't find anything about Fombonne being "turfed" by McGill.

Do you not understand what a strawman is? A strawman logical fallacy is where you mischaracterize an opponent's position and then argue against that mischaracterized position. In this case, you're arguing against the unstated claim that there are no ill effects from vaccines. I'm not "brushing off vaccine adverse effects as a 'strawman'", because that literally makes no sense. Where are the papers stating that GBS is anything other than a very rare side effect of the flu vaccine? If you're not claiming it to be anything other than very rare, I'm not sure what your point is, other than to possibly attack the strawman you erected. I'd also like you to address Luciferase's post about what you'd consider to be adequate testing.

[Gurn]

Thalidamide was an approved drug and the greatest thing since sliced bread, turned out despite all the pro's it had a large con that they either ignored(not likely) or did not know about(likely). However if all pregnant moms had been forced to take the pill, as seems to be your contention re-vaccinnes the world, or at least the north American continent would be a little short handed now.

An approved treatment (Thalidomide) and an approved vaccine? What is the difference?

[VICanucksfan5551]

Thalidamide was an approved drug and the greatest thing since sliced bread, turned out despite all the pro's it had a large con that they either ignored(not likely) or did not know about(likely). However if all pregnant moms had been forced to take the pill, as seems to be your contention re-vaccinnes the world, or at least the north American continent would be a little short handed now.

An approved treatment (Thalidomide) and an approved vaccine? What is the difference?

Do you not see the difference between a potentially lethal disease that is communicable and morning sickness?

[Aladeen]

"Obviously"? The current measles outbreak would not have occurred if there was a significant minority of unvaccinated people in every community. There is enough of a congregation of people that choose not to get vaccinated themselves and that puts immunosuppressed people around them at risk. I don't think you fully understand what needs to be in place in every population scale for herd immunity to be effective.

People should have a right to universal health care and they owe it to those around them to limit as much health hazards as they can. It's pathetic first world thinking to see vaccines as a political statement because you fail to see how ravaged communities can get when communicable diseases run rampant. It's a necessity, not a personal choice. You have the luxury of being free of most to even consider that fact when many would love to be in the situation you are in with the resources offered.

My first question to your response would be was it vaccinated people that got the measles? If so than vaccines are useless, if not then who cares it was their choice, let them have the measles. Again I fail to see how this affects you, assuming you are vaccinated against them.

If it's a question of costing the health care system to treat these infected people, then I suppose in your mind people shouldn't be allowed to engage in extreme sports as their injuries would tax the health care system since they are not limiting their exposure to health hazards.

People have rights and if their choice is not to be injected with something I personally stand behind that right whether or not I agree with what they are doing. If the 14 year old in this case consented to being injected I have no issue with it whatsoever. But if the injection was forced upon them or if they were given misinformation (perhaps told their parents wanted them injected) that is a different story altogether.

Rights are not political statements.

[VICanucksfan5551]

My first question to your response would be was it vaccinated people that got the measles? If so than vaccines are useless, if not then who cares it was their choice, let them have the measles. Again I fail to see how this affects you, assuming you are vaccinated against them.

If it's a question of costing the health care system to treat these infected people, then I suppose in your mind people shouldn't be allowed to engage in extreme sports as their injuries would tax the health care system since they are not limiting their exposure to health hazards.

People have rights and if their choice is not to be injected with something I personally stand behind that right whether or not I agree with what they are doing. If the 14 year old in this case consented to being injected I have no issue with it whatsoever. But if the injection was forced upon them or if they were given misinformation (perhaps told their parents wanted them injected) that is a different story altogether.

Rights are not political statements.

You missed the part where the issue is that these diseases are communicable. They pose a risk to others by not getting vaccinated, not just themselves.

[Aladeen]

You missed the part where the issue is that these diseases are communicable. They pose a risk to others by not getting vaccinated, not just themselves.

But they pose a risk to other NOT vaccinated no? So really that then goes on to the point that it really only affects those NOT vaccinated.

[Jägermeister]

My first question to your response would be was it vaccinated people that got the measles? If so than vaccines are useless, if not then who cares it was their choice, let them have the measles. Again I fail to see how this affects you, assuming you are vaccinated against them.

Some people have legitimate reasons as to why the cannot be vaccinated (allergies or whatnot).

By choosing not to get vaccinated people help spread the disease, which increases the risk that the people who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate reasons can contract it, which is incredibly unfair to them.

Additionally, small children who have parents who do not let them get vaccinated (for what ever reason), are also put at risk.

Pretty simple really.

[VICanucksfan5551]

But they pose a risk to other NOT vaccinated no? So really that then goes on to the point that it really only affects those NOT vaccinated.

Vaccines are not 100% effective at the individual level. You need a vaccinated population to protect the outlier individuals whose immune systems don't respond to the inoculation.

Edit: Forgot what Jagermeister said. Some people can't get vaccinated due to allergies and other medical issues. They are also at risk from someone choosing not to get vaccinated.

[Aladeen]

Some people have legitimate reasons as to why the cannot be vaccinated (allergies or whatnot).

By choosing not to get vaccinated people help spread the disease, which increases the risk that the people who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate reasons can contract it, which is incredibly unfair to them.

Pretty simple really.

So ignoring people's say religious rights or freedom of not being jabbed and injected with something that they don't know what it is, is completely fair?

[Aladeen]

Vaccines are not 100% effective at the individual level. You need a vaccinated population to protect the outlier individuals whose immune systems don't respond to the inoculation.

So tell me what sorts of penalties should be given out to those who would choose not to be vaccinated. Held down by two people while the injection is forced upon them? Or how about throw them in jail until they change their minds about the subject?

Monetarily Fine them to the point where they can't support themselves or until they agree to the inoculations?

Please do tell me a fair way to enforce such a law.

[Jägermeister]

So ignoring people's say religious rights or freedom of not being jabbed and injected with something that they don't know what it is, is completely fair?

I highly doubt any religion says anything along the lines of "thou shalt not be vaccinated against communicable diseases".

[Aladeen]

I highly doubt any religion says anything along the lines of "thou shalt not be vaccinated against communicable diseases".

I don't know what people's reasons are, maybe not religious but does it matter what if getting needles creates an undue amount of stress or anxiety for them. Now the potential is there for someone to have adverse health reactions because of the possibility they may give others possible adverse health reactions.

I don't care why someone doesn't want to get injected with something, either change their mind about it with education or don't do it, that's really the only options.

[Jägermeister]

I don't know what people's reasons are, maybe not religious but does it matter what if getting needles creates an undue amount of stress or anxiety for them. Now the potential is there for someone to have adverse health reactions because of the possibility they may give others possible adverse health reactions.

I don't care why someone doesn't want to get injected with something, either change their mind about it with education or don't do it, that's really the only options.

The sad thing is, as evidenced by several people in this thread, some people really don't seem to be open to being educated on the subject.

[VICanucksfan5551]

So tell me what sorts of penalties should be given out to those who would choose not to be vaccinated. Held down by two people while the injection is forced upon them? Or how about throw them in jail until they change their minds about the subject?

Monetarily Fine them to the point where they can't support themselves or until they agree to the inoculations?

Please do tell me a fair way to enforce such a law.

I don't know. I was just responding to the flaws in your initial argument.

[Aladeen]

The sad thing is, as evidenced by several people in this thread, some people really don't seem to be open to being educated on the subject.

And that's their right, I don't agree with it, but unless we can inoculate early on against stupidity, there will always be those who don't want to get vaccinated (for whatever reason).

I just don't see how this is something that can be made into a punishable law.

[Jägermeister]

And that's their right, I don't agree with it, but unless we can inoculate early on against stupidity, there will always be those who don't want to get vaccinated (for whatever reason).

That's the dream right there.

[Aladeen]

I don't know. I was just responding to the flaws in your initial argument.

And I was responding to the flaws in Luci's initial argument that vaccines should be made mandatory. In essence they already are but there will always be those hillbilly's that don't get it done or those religious cults or what have you.

All I am saying is it can't and shouldn't be something that is punished. It makes no sense in my mind to do so. If it is turned into a law people will just find ways around it.

Obviously it wouldn't be mandatory for people who have allergies so I bet we would just see the amount of people who had "allergies" to vaccines increase or more people who have religious beliefs against vaccines increase.

A law forcing people to inoculate would have little impact in the numbers of people who do so IMO. The people who do would still get it and the people adamant about not doing so would find a way around it.