i think this is just disgusting, the goverment can advice people to get they're kids the MMR injection, but should never be allowed to force it on us, ok, all three of my kids were given the injection, but it was my choice, the goverment shouldn't ever be able to stop kids going to school who haven't had the injection:

------------------------------------------------

Children who have not had their MMR jabs would be banned from starting school under a plan being considered by Gordon Brown.

The controversial idea will be included in Labour's general election manifesto if it's approved by the PM.

The plan would force parents to provide a certificate showing their children had been vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella before they could attend school.

All children under two would also be vaccinated each year against flu to help Britain fight the risk of a flu pandemic.

The policy, which would allow children to receive the MMR vaccinations separately or in the combined "triple jab", is the idea of Labour MP Mary Creagh.

Mr Brown has put the child health campaigner in charge of drawing up new health policies for the manifesto. She believes the scheme would cut illness among youngsters, particularly those from poorer families.

Children who failed to have the jabs would have "catch-up" jabs before they started.

Writing in Fabian Review, Mrs Creagh warned: "Childhood vaccination rates are as low as 11 per cent in inner London, and cases of measles, mumps and rubella are rising sharply.

"Figures released in March show that cases of whooping cough have nearly trebled since 2003. Labour should imitate the successful US model to ensure no low-income child was left unvaccinated.

"There, children can only start school after proof of vaccination has been supplied by parents - except on religious or medical grounds."

Sources close to Mr Brown said he would consider the proposals "very seriously indeed" but no final decisions had been made.

Concern that MMR was linked to autism was first raised by Dr Andrew Wakefield in 1998. It caused vaccination levels to drop sharply in the late 1990s and led to a rise in the cases of measles.

In 2001, Tony Blair refused to say whether his son Leo had had the jab, fuelling the political row and adding to the fears.

The Department of Health last night repeated its insistence there was no link between MMR and autism.

---------------------------------------

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/2008/05/11/school-ban-for-kids-with-no-mmr-jab-98487-20414094/


you thoughts:

well from a libertarian perspective you could argue that the right for individuals not to be infected by the un-imunized, over-rides the right to personal choice over immunization - although you could probably construct a counter-argument from the same political perspective.

Its yet more fucking hot air though - why not instead just properly publicise and fund proper MMR research, so people can make the right choices without having to have their arms twisted.

Its yet more fucking hot air though - why not instead just properly publicise and fund proper MMR research, so people can make the right choices without having to have their arms twisted.
I think you are badly over-estimating the stupidity and lack of critical thinking ability in the general population. If you have a medical doctor who also has a PhD in biochemistry explaining why vaccines are safe and effective one side and a mother crying about how she "just knows" that the MMR vaccine was what caused her kid to develop autism (or whatever) on the other, a significant fraction of parents will be more persuaded by the hysterical arguments of the clueless mother.

I think you are badly over-estimating the stupidity and lack of critical thinking ability in the general population. If you have a medical doctor who also has a PhD in biochemistry explaining why vaccines are safe and effective one side and a mother crying about how she "just knows" that the MMR vaccine was what caused her kid to develop autism (or whatever) on the other, a significant fraction of parents will be more persuaded by the hysterical arguments of the clueless mother.

I agree. There is a lot of panic with parents about the supposed link to the MMR vaccine and autism. I will admit I was concerned, but I took my concerns to my doctor as well as doing extra research on it myself. There is no link to date, to the MMR vaccine and autism. People have linked the two because the first signs of autism tend to appear within 6 months or so after the child has had the vaccine. I read a report a year and a half ago (when I researched into the matter before my eldest was to have the vaccine) that stated that even children who have not had the vaccine and had displayed autistic symptoms did so at around the same age.

Both of my children have had the vaccine. The minute chance that it could lead to autism is just that, minute at best. I would rather my child be vaccinated than buy into the fear mongering of many other people and leave my child open to the illnesses the vaccine is meant to protect them against.

i think this is just disgusting, the goverment can advice people to get they're kids the MMR injection, but should never be allowed to force it on us, ok, all three of my kids were given the injection, but it was my choice, the goverment shouldn't ever be able to stop kids going to school who haven't had the injection:

Parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated put the general population at risk. Now, your children have been vaccinated and thus, have some form of protection. How would you then feel if your child contracts the disease and falls terribly ill because a child at your children's school has parents who refuse to vaccinate their children out of the belief that the vaccines are not important or necessary? Measles, Mumps and Rubella are horrible illnesses that can cause severe problems in children and adults if contracted. I have had all three as a child and when I had the Mumps, I remember my father coming down with it and ending up in a near coma. This was before there were vaccines available.

Personally, I would prefer that every child at my children's school are vaccinated. Some are unable to be vaccinated due to allergies to the components in the vaccine itself and that is a different thing altogether. But I personally have little to no respect for parents who refuse to vaccinate their children for whatever reason, aside from those who have children who are allergic to them, of course. The actions of the parents who refuse on grounds other than allergies place all other children at risk.

Is the British Government correct in preventing children who have not been vaccinated from attending school. The parental side of me says yes. The other side of me says it's not fair on the child to miss out on an education because of their parents irresponsibility.

It depends on the unimmunized proportion of the population. I have a vague recollection that the proportion of unimmunized kids in the UK is now high enough that an epidemic is a real possibility.

Note that the proposal isn't to force kids to be immunized - it is to prevent unimmunized children from congregating at school. They're trying to reduce the likelihood an epidemic by reducing the likely transmission vectors.

Maybe tougher sickness restrictions on unimmunized children would help?
Cough? Put on a mask. Sniffles? Go home.

Bells, i was under the impression that the Rubella shot wasnt given until grade 6 or is that a boster?

LA i have to say i agree with bells on this one, there are people who are alergic to eggs who cant be vacinated (because the vacines are made in eggs generally) but that is a small percentage and if you enforce vacination on everyone else the risk to them goes down.

I have had every vacine bar the flu (basically because i chose as an adult to take that risk until i start working for the ambo's where i would be putting my pts at risk) and i havent had the hep vacine yet because i cant aford the $150 right now. I have tetnas shots on a regular basis.

Look at small pox as an example, vacinations compleatly eradicated that disease from the population all together. Now untill we find the penicilin of virus's (anti virals just dont work anywhere near as well as antibotics for bacteria do) vacines will be our only defence and the goverment is just moving to protect the population as a whole against these deaseas. Im sorry but a small infringment on your rights as a parent to decide for your children could save any pregnant mother your children come in contact with from having to deal with the repercussions of a baby born when the mother has rebella. Those include blindness and i think retardation and possably deefness as well so its worth it. Measels and mumps are more aimed at the child themselves because they are not pleasent but rebella is aimed to protect the next generation and thats a risk no one should have to take because some idiot doesnt want there child vacinated.

In Canada before your child can start kindergarten you must show the school the updated Immunization records for your child. If they are not up to date they can't start school. I am glad that they do that. That means every child who starts school is up to date.
I don't know why you wouldn't want to get your child vaccinated. I wouldn't put my child at risk to potential outbreaks.

Bells, i was under the impression that the Rubella shot wasnt given until grade 6 or is that a boster?

LA i have to say i agree with bells on this one, there are people who are alergic to eggs who cant be vacinated (because the vacines are made in eggs generally) but that is a small percentage and if you enforce vacination on everyone else the risk to them goes down.

I have had every vacine bar the flu (basically because i chose as an adult to take that risk until i start working for the ambo's where i would be putting my pts at risk) and i havent had the hep vacine yet because i cant aford the $150 right now. I have tetnas shots on a regular basis.

Look at small pox as an example, vacinations compleatly eradicated that disease from the population all together. Now untill we find the penicilin of virus's (anti virals just dont work anywhere near as well as antibotics for bacteria do) vacines will be our only defence and the goverment is just moving to protect the population as a whole against these deaseas. Im sorry but a small infringment on your rights as a parent to decide for your children could save any pregnant mother your children come in contact with from having to deal with the repercussions of a baby born when the mother has rebella. Those include blindness and i think retardation and possably deefness as well so its worth it. Measels and mumps are more aimed at the child themselves because they are not pleasent but rebella is aimed to protect the next generation and thats a risk no one should have to take because some idiot doesnt want there child vacinated.

No. They get their first MMR shot at 12 months of age. Then the booster when they are 4.

And Rubella in a pregnant woman can lead to abnormalities in the developing child. They can include deafness, blindness, heart defects as well as mental retardation.

thats strange. I destintly rember getting a rebella shot in grade 6, and i KNOW it was rebella because alot of the other boys wernt getting it and i asked mum why they give it to both when its only to protect the girls from getting it when they latter become pregant (ok i know i worded that badly but you get the idea). I also rember it was a tiny needle because i couldnt belive they had already given it to me or that so many of them were crying over something that small:p. I know it was grade 6 because i was only at that school in grade 6 because my previous school had merged and we didnt like the new principle so we moved to the local state school for the one year.

I do have to correct my previous statement though:p
I never had the manigococole vacine because i was to old and i never had chicken pox either because nither of them were avilable when i was at school (though i have had chicken pox itself when i was quite young)

thats strange. I destintly rember getting a rebella shot in grade 6, and i KNOW it was rebella because alot of the other boys wernt getting it and i asked mum why they give it to both when its only to protect the girls from getting it when they latter become pregant (ok i know i worded that badly but you get the idea). I also rember it was a tiny needle because i couldnt belive they had already given it to me or that so many of them were crying over something that small:p. I know it was grade 6 because i was only at that school in grade 6 because my previous school had merged and we didnt like the new principle so we moved to the local state school for the one year.

I do have to correct my previous statement though:p
I never had the manigococole vacine because i was to old and i never had chicken pox either because nither of them were avilable when i was at school (though i have had chicken pox itself when i was quite young)

From what I know with my children at least, they will get a second booster when they are both 4 years of age. What they get when they are between 10 and 13 years of age is Hep B and a chicken pox booster shot if they have never had it. I've never had chicken pox myself and my eldest has had his shots when he was 18 months of age. My second will as well. While I'd prefer if they actually do get the disease since that does give longer lasting immunity (forever basically), they will still get the shots regardless. I will be getting it when my youngest gets his shots, just in case. Therefore, if any one of us does contract it, the effects should be a lot milder, but still give lasting protection.

Hi Asguard,
Here is the current Australian immunisation schedule (http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/nips)

bells they must have changed it since i was at schoool then, this would have been ummm 14 years ago (god i feel old now:(). Oh BTW there is a risk with infection rather than vacination for chicken pox. As far as i know you cant get shingles if you have the vacine but if you get chicken pox your at risk of it for the rest of your life (because the virus stays alive in the nerves forever aparently). Would much rather have had the shots than forever have this risk because its a VERY nasty condition (when mums friend got it she ended up in hospital)

Oh a side note, concidering the fact they give the rebella shot to boys to i was wondering why they dont give the papaloma vacine to boys to compleatly wipe out the virus insted of only vacinating girls for it. It would be nice if they could vacinate for the rest of the family to because herpies and cold sores are both in that family

bells they must have changed it since i was at schoool then, this would have been ummm 14 years ago (god i feel old now:(). Oh BTW there is a risk with infection rather than vacination for chicken pox. As far as i know you cant get shingles if you have the vacine but if you get chicken pox your at risk of it for the rest of your life (because the virus stays alive in the nerves forever aparently). Would much rather have had the shots than forever have this risk because its a VERY nasty condition (when mums friend got it she ended up in hospital)

Oh a side note, concidering the fact they give the rebella shot to boys to i was wondering why they dont give the papaloma vacine to boys to compleatly wipe out the virus insted of only vacinating girls for it. It would be nice if they could vacinate for the rest of the family to because herpies and cold sores are both in that family

I thought the HPV vaccine was being developed or tested for boys as well, or more to the point, that boys will be required to have it as well.

And yes, my children and myself will be getting the chicken pox vaccine, as well as any booster shots that will be necessary in the future.

As for rubella, the effects on boys can be just as dangerous. The risk of rubella in pregnant women is seen as dangerous due to the potential damage it can do to the foetus in the first and second trimester. But for both males and females, rubella itself can lead to some pretty nasty complications. So the vaccine applies to both males and females.

I will have to go looking at that because i was always under the asumption that rebella (in the non pregnant population) was no more dangorious than chicken pox itself (ignoring the shingles complication). I belive it was the non leathality that was the reason they never vacinated for chicken pox when i was young because though they HAD a vacine the risks were so low that it wasnt cost effective when compared to the risks of other virus's like polio.

Heres a question for you, at school the tripple atigon (tetnus) was always given with the polio vacine yet since my last school based vacination every time i have had a tenus shot its been given alone. Is polio not concidered a risk in the adult population or is the protection enduring?

I don't believe they give out polio vaccines anymore. At least not here I've never had one. The main office that runs the daycare center I work for wanted to make it mandatory that all the kids who attended the program to have flu shots, but it won't go into effect until next flu season. I don't get the whole flu shot thing. I think its a live virus that is injected into you, because people who get the shot can still get sick. I thought it was funny that my boyfriend got the flu shot and got the flu and I haven't been sick even once this entire year. (so far) *knock on wood* No flu shot for me.

Cutsie rember there are ALOT of virus's which can cause flu like symptoms (even the common cold does that) and even if it IS the flu there are so many different strains that its a hit and miss if they get the right one for the year.

As for polio they most certianly DO vacinate for it, its a foul tasting medicen on a small spoon. As the percentage of the population who are vacinated fall the risks go back up. The only virus that has been eliminated was small pox, all the other virus's are still out there waiting to come back. Whoping cough for instance apears about every generation

If your kids are immunized, what do you care if someone elses isnt? Its not like anyone is trying to take your choice of using immunizations away.

milkweed there are a percentage of the population which cant be imunised and another portion for who the imunisation doesnt work. This means we relie on not only our OWN imunisation but everyone elses as well to control illness

hey that makes me wonder if someone who was imunocompromised (or there family) could sue someone who refused to be imunised for passing on a disease

small pox is not extinct. They just started vaccinating where I live again, because they thought it was extinct so they stopped vaccinating and when it showed up there was a small epidemic. I haven't received the vaccine myself, because I walk on the wild side (aka bad health insurance). There was a menigitis out break too so they want all college students to be vaccinated for it, but I don't have that one either, however I find menigitis to be a much more serious condition than just a minor form of influenza.

i agree with the injections, however what i disagree with is, the fact that perents are going to be forced to give the kids the injection, shouldn't it be left to the mum and dad, and not the goverment?

well from a libertarian perspective you could argue that the right for individuals not to be infected by the un-imunized

if they can still catch it then why the hell did they bother with the immunisation in the first place?

if they can still catch it then why the hell did they bother with the immunisation in the first place?

because when they do catch it they don't catch it so serverly!

small pox is not extinct. They just started vaccinating where I live again, because they thought it was extinct so they stopped vaccinating and when it showed up there was a small epidemic.

Where?

milkweed there are a percentage of the population which cant be imunised and another portion for who the imunisation doesnt work. This means we relie on not only our OWN imunisation but everyone elses as well to control illness

What percentage of a given population has this issue?

I mean I do read a bit about small outbreaks of mumps and/or measles around here from various communities (usually immigrant) and the problems are minimal when talking long term issues. 1-2 out of 1000 die from measles during an average outbreak.

Rubella's major issue is it seems to cause birth defects in pregnant women. But shouldnt this be handled as a part of sex ed?

Its always troubled me that we give these things to people who cannot report symptoms, and I do find it worth exploration the reports from parents regarding "the kid was fine before the shot". There are too many credible adults reporting the same things over and over. I know these issues are a small percentage of the whole, but to be as dismissive as the system is of these issues, are we actually slowing safeguards to further minimize risk to child under the guise of "we're safer losing a few/damaging a few".

And while its fun for scientists to discover these things, and offer a benefit to people, it should remain a choice made rather than a mandate. Personally, I really do think as a whole we are better off riding out these various diseases and building a natural immunity. Note that I am not declaring no one should get immunized, only that it should be a choice. If I were to be traveling to, say africa, I would investigate which immunizations I should get, not so much from fear of the disease, rather it would be fear of the health care.

And balance this with military personal who were forced to receive immunization shots and reporting many issues, and think of the mandates being lobbied for, such as HPV, hepititis, etc. as the corps guinea pig the kids.

And finally, measles and mumps tend to be a once in a lifetime event. You get it, your sick for a while and then your immune. Rubella has a very low second infection rate, described as rare otherwise it is also a once in a lifetime event.

vaccineinformation.org (http://www.vaccineinformation.org)

No i dont have exact staistics because it would take me ages to track down the statistics for all the groups and then colate them

Firstly there are those who are alergic to eggs who cant recive most vacines at all, then there are those who are imunocompromised because of either anti rejection drugs (transplant pts), those with iradiated imune systems (lukima), the elderly, those who the vacine is simply wearing off on because of time, HIV infected, the very young prevacination (especially the bottle feed or with mothers who havent been vacinated) and those for whom the vacine simply doesnt work (i know this is true for the Hep vacine but im not sure for which others)

No i dont have exact staistics because it would take me ages to track down the statistics for all the groups and then colate them

Firstly there are those who are alergic to eggs who cant recive most vacines at all, then there are those who are imunocompromised because of either anti rejection drugs (transplant pts), those with iradiated imune systems (lukima), the elderly, those who the vacine is simply wearing off on because of time, HIV infected, the very young prevacination (especially the bottle feed or with mothers who havent been vacinated) and those for whom the vacine simply doesnt work (i know this is true for the Hep vacine but im not sure for which others)
The link I posted disputes the egg allergy connection, due (i think) to changes in how vaccines are produced.

As far as the rest of the persons listed, their risk is minimal, compared to all of the other, more common factors that can affect their health. It is not my responsiblity to protect them, it falls to those persons themselves.

What I dont know is if these various transplant/leukemia/hiv persons retain earlier immunities developed or if this just impacts those who have not developed the disease and the attached natural immunity (or vaccine immunity). So we may have a very narrow percentage of the population at risk, vs the right to choose to develop natural immunity.

As far as I know, the naturally developed immunity does not wear off, it seems only the vaccine induced version carries that potential.

My problem;

"except on religious or medical grounds", ... ok, so you could have an intellectual problem with MMR, but if the guy that represents your brand of sky pixies says MMR isn't to be had, you get excused. BUllshit, sto ppandering to religions. If the requirement is to have the jab, everyone has to have it, sky pixie be buggered.

My problem;

"except on religious or medical grounds", ... ok, so you could have an intellectual problem with MMR, but if the guy that represents your brand of sky pixies says MMR isn't to be had, you get excused. BUllshit, sto ppandering to religions. If the requirement is to have the jab, everyone has to have it, sky pixie be buggered.

As I understand it, 3 states in the USA single out religious or medical exemption only. The rest have worded their exemption laws to include conscientious objection.

milkweed is correct: egg allergies aren’t an issue with the MMR vaccine. It can be a problem for yellow fever or influenza vaccine, but you have to have a really bad allergy to eggs before it's a problem. Usually even a person who is badly allergic to eggs can get the vaccine without anything worse than a lot of nausea, itchiness, etc. for a few hours after the injection.

milkweed is correct: egg allergies aren’t an issue with the MMR vaccine. It can be a problem for yellow fever or influenza vaccine, but you have to have a really bad allergy to eggs before it's a problem. Usually even a person who is badly allergic to eggs can get the vaccine without anything worse than a lot of nausea, itchiness, etc. for a few hours after the injection.

One of my cousin's children is allergic to eggs. They found that out when she had her first dose of shots at 2 months of age and she went into shock within seconds of having it. After that particularly nasty episode, she was given alternative vaccines for her other shots, if I remember correctly.

She had the MMR shot without any problems at all.

There are some children who do have really bad reactions, hence why you usually have to stay at the doctors for about 15 minutes after having had the shots, just in case.

I think one of the main issues with the MMR at the moment is the fear that it may be connected to autism. And lets face it, some parents are against vaccination altogether. When I had my second child, there was a midwife at the hospital who was one of these people and argued with me about having to give my son his Hep B shot, the first of which is given when the child is a few days old and administered in the hospital before discharge. This was recently implemented when it was discovered that a lot of parents were lax in getting their children vaccinated. The midwife in question had taken to telling parents that it was not advisable to vaccinate children because she felt it was better for the child to actually get the illnesses and get the lifelong immunity, much like it was in the olden days. And her argument was that medical technology and advancement meant that a child with a severe reaction to the diseases in question could be saved so she felt immunisation and the rare risk of dangers it posed to children was not a chance she felt women should be taking with their children. Thankfully someone reported her before I got the chance to and she was forced to apologise to the women she had been caring for. I never saw her again after that.

I don't know if some of the women listened to her or how long she was allowed to spread the fear of vaccines into women's minds.. I mean lets face it.. many of these women were scared enough.. just had a child and just the suggestion that their child could suffer an adverse reaction from their shots was enough to scare them into not vaccinating their child.

Fear mongering of this scale will result in many parents not vaccinating their children. As Pete mentioned earlier, the level of unvaccinated children in the UK in particular has reached a proportion that an epidemic is likely if the illness is to make a return. Vaccinating a child does not mean it will be immune from the disease. How can it be when there are so many who are unvaccinated? What it does mean is that the child has a little bit of extra protection and hopefully, if it does come down with any of the diseases covered by the vaccine, that their body will have a better chance of fighting it off.

bells did you report her?

That may be ok with chicken pox but HEP or polio or whoping cough!!!!!!:mad:

Milkweed how can you retain imunity when your whole imune system is destroyed?
Actually do a bit of resurch on imunology before commenting for christ sake, as for egg alergyies yes its only SOME vacines but i DO know they ask before giving the polio shot for instance and yes the flu shot is one of those (cant rember about the hep shot). As for the rebella shot i honestly dont know how its produced which is why i was discusing imisations in GENERAL rather than this specifically

bells did you report her?

That may be ok with chicken pox but HEP or polio or whoping cough!!!!!!:mad:

Milkweed how can you retain imunity when your whole imune system is destroyed?
Actually do a bit of resurch on imunology before commenting for christ sake, as for egg alergyies yes its only SOME vacines but i DO know they ask before giving the polio shot for instance and yes the flu shot is one of those (cant rember about the hep shot). As for the rebella shot i honestly dont know how its produced which is why i was discusing imisations in GENERAL rather than this specifically
When the shift change occurred and another midwife arrived to check on me and the baby, I told her and she said that a report had already been filed but she would let them know I was also one of the mothers she had been discussing the issue with. I left it there. I had other things to worry about. Since the midwife in question basically avoided giving my son the shot, he had to have it when the shift change occurred and the other group of midwives came on duty. She was truly against immunisation and I guess she saw it as an opportunity to tell new parents this. The next day she came in to apologise and then other midwives and doctors came in and spoke to me (and I believe other parents) of the benefits of immunisation. I had always planned to immunise my second child regardless, barring any circumstances such as allergies, just as I did with my first child.

Rubella can cause severe reactions in both sexes, that is why boys also have to have it. Rubella, like chicken pox, can cause foetal abnomalities, hence why women who have 0 protection (eg, they have not had either or been vaccinated for either) are told to keep away from anyone who may be at risk of either of these diseases. The same goes for measles and mumps actually. That's why newly pregnant women have to have a blood test to check their immunity against these diseases.

That may be ok with chicken pox but HEP or polio or whoping cough!!!!!!:mad:

Milkweed how can you retain imunity when your whole imune system is destroyed?
Actually do a bit of resurch on imunology before commenting for christ sake, as for egg alergyies yes its only SOME vacines but i DO know they ask before giving the polio shot for instance and yes the flu shot is one of those (cant rember about the hep shot).

We have irradicated small pox, via an aggressive immunization program. The same type of program is MMR, polio, etc. Yet these diseases remain to infect humans.

So is the difference between small pox, and these other continuing to exist viri are simply, they are not host specific and will remain in nature like anthrax remains in the soil? Like tetnus remains in the soil? And these various immunio compromised persons are at risk of exposure, no matter how many children get these diseases?

Measles suppresses HIV replication:
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Acute-Measles-Supresses-HIV-Replication--1191-1/
http://media.www.jhunewsletter.com/media/storage/paper932/news/2008/04/03/Science/Measles.Virus.Slows.Progression.Of.Hiv.Infection-3301387.shtml

Yet higher death rate for HIV infected persons vs non infected:
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102252506.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070723111544.htm

Additionally, I looked up and posted a link which states who should and should not get shots. You should review it yourself being as egg allergy is not a polio issue, but some antibiotics are.

But then this is drifting off topic, being as the mandate was MMR vaccine.

As for the rebella shot i honestly dont know how its produced which is why i was discusing imisations in GENERAL rather than this specifically
The thing is, specifics can make all the difference in a situation like this. If someone doesn't want to get vaccinated with a vaccine that anyone can get, they aren't risking the health of anyone who didn't choose to risk their own health by choosing to not get vaccinated. In that case, I don't think people should be compelled to take the vaccine if they don't want to (although I agree that it would generally be stupid to refuse it). But if some people can't be vaccinated against a disease, that changes things - now a person who voluntarily decides to not get vaccinated is also risking the health of other people who would like to get the vaccine, but can't.

nasor no it doesnt change the risk at all, as i said with some vaciniations they simply dont work on some people (like the HEP one but pobably others, this is the one where its tested for) and others lose that imunity because of various reasons. If your patner is taking imunosupressant drugs because they had to get a kidney and you became infected with rebella and killed them because of it how would you feel about your parents then?

As I understand it, 3 states in the USA single out religious or medical exemption only. The rest have worded their exemption laws to include conscientious objection.


If it were worded that way in the UK, Gordon Brown would be wasting his breath, as there are concerns amongst too many parents that the combined MMR vaccine leads to autism, although this is widely disputed.

He only mentions the religious objection 'cos he's a christian, he wants to be able to dictate to atheists on the other hand.

Screw Gordon Brown.