Noooooooooooooooooooooo I am vehemently opposed to mandatory anything and especially vaccinations. I could bore for England on the subject.. so many people blindly believe and trust... if they took the time to really research and read they would find out that vaccination really isn't all it's cracked up to be
There are exceptional circumstances, but in general, I support some vaccines being mandatory for admission to schools, and even being admitted to public places.
I think it's irresponsible of people to have no concern for others.
Where does the personal "freedom and liberty" end? As soon as it infringes on someone else.
So while "freedom and liberty" may allow one to opt out of getting a vaccination ... it may also allow government to say that "if you don't get a vaccination, you can't attend public school" because you put other people's health at risk.
Of course, science is now at the point of attempting genetic alterations of human embryos. So what parent wouldn't want their kid to be genetically altered to be immune to {disease}? (if the success rate was high enough)
Answer: any parent who believes in freedom and self-determination. And oh rather a blessing to be kept out of most public schools which put a child's education at risk.
Sure. If any parent were told: "We can genetically alter your unborn child to make them immune to cancer, with no side effects for 95% of procedures" ... I don't care how much a parent believes in "freedom and self-determination". It's about protecting their child.
Belief in freedom and self-determination doesn't override a parent's duty to protect their child from harm. They don't say to a toddler "go ahead and touch that hot stove, because I believe in your freedom and self-determination".
If it puts the child at risk, YES. Indeed there's an argument for Child Services to remove the children from the "care" of irresponsible parents. It's more dangerous than leaving kids unrestrained in a moving vehicle (which is illegal everywhere).
For children, yes. No parent has the right to risk the life of a child for the sake of "freedom". Can a person condemned to living inside an iron lung because his/her parents refused to have him/her vaccinated against poliomyelitis be considered "free"? Or a child choking to death from diphtheria? A baby born with hideous deformities because its mother wasn't vaccinated against rubella? Legislation requires children to be restrained in motor vehicles. This is more important. Onc a person becomes an adult, then prophylactic measures against communicable diseases becomes optional. It's the smart thing to do, but stupidity isn't illegal.
The point of failure is when the law forbids suing the pharma company for making a lousy vaccine. At that point you have no idea what is in the vaccine and nobody is responsible for it.
Eeks! No thanks, if other people are so concerned for their health they can get a vaccine if they want but don't force it on me. Maybe if there was a way not involving needles, I won't be such a wimp about it..
officegirl 