MOTION #92: THIS HOUSE WOULD MAKE VACCINATION
COMPULSORY
In the United Kingdom,
the percentage of children who have had already at least one dose of the
measles, mumps and rubella vaccination by their second birthdays was 88.2 % in
2009 – 2010. A much higher number than in 2008-2009 (84.9 %) or in 2003-2004
(79.9 %). The WHO (World Health Organization) suggests, that for a successful
protection of the community 95 % of children need to have the jab.
Vaccines represent one
of the most successful and effective interventions in medicine and a lucrative
business opportunity for many pharmaceutical companies. By vaccinating people,
society has been able to eradicate numerous diseases that caused millions of
deaths before.
A dramatic example is
smallpox, which was responsible for some of the most formidable epidemics of
humankind. In 1967 it was the cause of 2 million deaths; a decade later it was
totally eradicated from the planet by a concerted global vaccination program.
Many countries have thus made it compulsory for people to be vaccinated against
various diseases.
As of 2009 children in
the US, Australia, Spain and Greece must have proof of vaccination before
entering the public school system, although it is becoming easier in many
states for parents to gain exemptions from this requirement. In the UK there is
no such requirement (currently).
Prior to a vaccine for
polio, between 13,000 and 20,000 cases were reported in the USA annually. In
1988, the World Health Organization decided to try and eradicate polio
worldwide with vaccination, and as of today, the disease has been removed from
the USA, Western Pacific and Europe. Only four countries (Afghanistan, Nigeria,
India and Pakistan) are endemic, and there are just 2000 cases reported
worldwide annually as of 2009.
But by stopping vaccination
before the disease is widely eradicated leaves countries susceptible to future
unexpected outbreaks. Another common disease – measles, affected nearly
everyone in the United States prior to the vaccination being introduced.
Between 1953 and 1963, there were 450 deaths each year from the disease.
Currently in the US, three of every 1000 people who contract measles will die,
whilst in the developing world, one in 100 will die. It is estimated that 90%
of people who are exposed to the virus will get infected if not vaccinated
against it. In 1999 according to the WHO, there were 900,000 measles related
deaths worldwide. Measles can spread rapidly amongst unvaccinated populations,
and if vaccinations were stopped, the WHO estimate there could be 2.7 million
measles related deaths worldwide annually.
Type B meningitis was
prior to the vaccine the most common form of bacterial meningitis in US
infants, with 20,000 annual cases, with one in 600 proving either fatal or
leaving the child with some form of disability. Since the vaccine became
available in 1987, the number of cases has reduced by 98%, with fewer than ten
fatalities a year. These are just a few examples of how vaccines can prevent
and eradicate diseases that have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths
throughout the past century. Although some may argue that with diseases such as
Polio wiped out in most of the world a vaccine is not necessary. However any
reduction in the number of people vaccinated against the disease would leave a
window of opportunity for the disease to rear its head up once again.
Even though benefits
are much greater if everyone is vaccinated than if not, some people choose not
to be vaccinated, and have concerns about certain vaccines. Simultaneously the
number of people vaccinated rose as did the movements against the notion of
compulsory vaccination, such as the society of Anti Vaccinations (1798) and the
Anti- Vaccination League (1853).
There should be as few obstacles as possible to such a program in order to
save as many lives as possible. Some might argue that, that the government
should not be able to force someone to have a needle stuck into them? They
might also say that if they wish to take the risk of not having the vaccine
that is their choice. However many claim, that because the risks do not just
affect them, but the people around them, people should not be allowed to choose
vaccines on their own. So, this
essentially this debate boils down to personal liberty vs. the good of the
entire society.
Pros
|
Cons
|
It is the state’s duty to protect its community. If an age group is protected, that results in a better
health conditions for the whole society.
In an industrialized country such as the USA, those
choosing exemption from statutorily compulsory vaccination were 35-times more
likely to contract measles than vaccinated persons; in developing countries
where these viruses are still endemic, the risk would be considerably higher.
Those who wish to opt-out of vaccination (often on
behalf of their children, who have no say in the matter) are classic free
riders, hoping to benefit from the more responsible behavior of the rest of
society. As it is assumed that most of society see it as a responsibility and
a duty to protect others.
After a scare about possible side effects of the MMR
jab, in 2008 there was a drop in voluntary vaccinations in a part of London
(Lewisham). In that part of London only 64.3 % of children were vaccine and
in that year the district accounted one third of all south-east London
measles cases. Unless there is a 95 % vaccination, there is a great threat to
public health of infection outbreaks. It is therefore the role of the state
to understand these issues and possible treats and provide a duty of
protection and care, in this case, in the form of immunization.
Another example of the need to protect is also given by
the example of voluntary vaccination against the flu, because of its impacts
on the whole population is given by Pediatric studies: “In several studies,
results indicated that a 100% vaccination rate among health care personnel in
acute care settings triggered a 43% decline in risk of influenza among
patients. This decrease appeared even higher — 60% — among nursing home
patients.”
So by giving up some of the individuals freedoms and
the feeling of duty to protection, the community is much more protected and
benefits from the vaccination of the community.
|
A great deal of
health care and prevention of diseases is information and an informed
decision. The United Kingdom does not have a system of compulsory health
care, but disease outbreaks are still prevented due to the voluntary uptake
of immunizations. The pediatrician Miriam Fine-Goulden explains: “The risk of
contracting these infections is only so low at present because the voluntary
uptake of immunizations has been high enough (in most cases) to reduce the
chance of contact with those organisms through the process of herd immunity.”
Also it can be
argued that measles, mumps and rubella (one of the diseases vaccine against)
are far from harmful. They are relatively minor illnesses. Measles causes a
rash and high fever. Mumps causes swollen glands, headache and fever. Rubella
is usually mild and can go unnoticed.
Just because medical
advance has been made in vaccinations it does not mean that we have to be
immunized against every little disease known to man. Bearing in mind the cost
of such jabs on the heavily burdened NHS, surely it would be better to not
make the MMR jab compulsory. This way we keep parents happy and the NHS
budget can be stretched further.
Researches also show that alternative approaches
towards diseases such as better nutrition, homeopathy, etc. give very
positive results. Healthier populations would not need vaccines to fight a
disease. High profits that are now reserved only for the pharmaceutical
industry would be spread to other areas of the economy, such as agriculture
and the service sector, and more people would gain.
|
Duty to protect the child. As article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
states, “State parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of
his or her right of access to health services.”
Each year millions of children worldwide die of
preventable diseases before the age of five.
The argument presented here is that the state needs to
protect the child and immunize him or her from preventable diseases as
obviously the child does not have the capabilities at this stage to make
informed decisions of their own.
The United Nations Right to Liberty and Security of the
Person treaty, article 6.2 supports this view - State Parties shall ensure to
the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.
It is up to the State to decide if a child is to be
immunized, as overall it will be the State who would benefit from having the
vast majority of its citizens vaccinated, and it will be the State who will
have to pay for any treatment needed to treat a preventable disease. Whilst a
child’s parents have to a certain degree the right to decide what is best for
their child’s future, poor decision making in this area could result in
serious medical issues for the nation. In this extremely important area, the
State must have authority over the rights of the parent.
|
Compulsory
vaccination is an example of the tyranny of the majority even if it is made
by a democratic government. And in a community that praises itself as
democratic and respectful to wishes of others it is in no way acceptable that
the rights of some get abused by the wishes of others.
John Stuart Mill has
set philosophical basics: “the majority… the people, consequently, may desire
to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against
this, as against any other abuse of power… In the part which merely concerns
himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own
body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
The state (or the
majority) can only dictate to the individual is if that individual’s actions
adversely affect the collective. Therefore the question is ‘what is the
purpose of the vaccination?’ if it is to provide individuals with their own
protection then autonomy of decision-making and individual liberty should
predominate as guiding principles.
Under these circumstances there can be little
justification of any coercion on the part of public health officials, in
particular the use of mandatory vaccination legislation. If it is more based
upon public harm i.e. the more chance of the virus infecting from one human
to another then the less this defense can be used.
|
Compulsory vaccines are a financial relief on the
health system. Commonly-used
vaccines are a cost-effective and preventive way of promoting health,
compared to the treatment of acute or chronic disease. In the U.S. during the
year 2001, routine childhood immunizations against seven diseases were
estimated to save over $40 billion per birth-year cohort in overall social
costs including $10 billion in direct health costs, and the societal
benefit-cost ratio for these vaccinations was estimated to be 16.5 billion.
Another aspect is also, that productivity rates remain
high and less money is earmarked for social and health transfers because
people are healthier. This is also supported by a WHO study, that claims: “We
calculate that the average percentage increase in income for the children
whose immunization coverage increases through will rise from 0.78 per cent in
2005 to 2.39 per cent by 2020. This equates to an increase in annual earnings
per child of $14 by 2020. The total increase in income per year once the
vaccinated cohort of children start earning will rise from $410 million in
2005 to $1.34 billion by 2020 (at a cost of $638 million in 2005 and $748
million in 2020).” This study based on economic and health indicators is part
of the world immunization program GAVI.
|
Vaccines themselves are expensive to develop in the lab
and to mass produce for widespread compulsory vaccination programs. In
addition to these upfront costs, organizing compulsory vaccination programs
across an entire country can be very complicated and expensive. For instance,
mechanisms must be set in place to ensure that the program is indeed
compulsory, which means establishing a database of those that have and have
not received the vaccine.
|
The problem with this is that those refusing vaccines
on account of this effectively violate the same right for other people if,
and when, there is an outbreak of the disease against which the vaccine is
protecting.
|
Compulsory
vaccination violates the individuals’ right to bodily integrity. In most countries and declarations, one of the most
basic human rights is the one to bodily integrity. It sets down that you have
a right not to have your body or person interfered with. This means that the
State may not do anything to harm your body without consent.
The NHS (National
Health Service) explains: “You must give your consent (permission) before you
receive any type of medical treatment, from a simple blood test to deciding
to donate your organs after your death. If you refuse a treatment, your
decision must be respected.”
This comes from the
principle, that if a person has the capacity to consent to treatment and is
making an informed decision (based on pros and cons of the treatment), the
decision must be respected. The NHS explains further on: “If you have enough
capacity and make a voluntary and informed decision to refuse a treatment,
your decision must be respected. This applies even if your decision would
result in your death, or the death of your unborn child.”
In the case of vaccination this principle should be
also applied. Even though we recognize that children are not able to fully
comprehend the consequences a refusal would have, the parents should be there
to decide on behalf of children over such decisions. The state has no right
to stick a needle into a child just because they see fit doing so. It might
be contested that in case of life endangering illnesses, the state should
override the individuals’ rights. But rejection of vaccinations is not life
endangering. So it is the judgment of the individual that is important and
should not under any case be violated, just because someone might get an
illness that in today’s modern world is easily curable.
|
An adult vaccine refusal and a parental vaccine refusal
are not the same. Parents do not have absolute right to put their child at a
risk even if they themselves are willing to accept such a risk for him or
herself.
Minors have a right to be protected against infectious
diseases and society has the responsibility to ensure welfare of children who
may be harmed by their parents’ decisions.
Counseling should form an integral part of any such
legislation, as often it is not conviction but laziness of the parents in
taking their child to the clinic for immunization or the parents’ inability
to make an informed decision.
Also the state has already protected children in cases,
when their functioning later as an adult could be compromised due to parental
actions. For instance: in order to promote culturally prescribed norms,
parents may seek to remove their child from school, or have their daughter
undergo clitoridectomy; yet the state may claim that such a decision violates
the parents' trustee relationship on grounds that the state has a compelling
interest in securing the full citizenship capacities and rights of each of
its citizens. As trustee, the parent has a limited right to exclusivity in
determining the child's life over the course of childhood, but this
determination is to be aimed at shaping the child into (for instance) a
productive citizen and community member.
The LSU Law center also explains: “The more difficult
problem is religious or cultural groups that oppose immunizations. These
groups tend to cluster, reducing the effective immunization level in their
neighborhoods, schools, and churches. In addition to endangering their own
children, such groups pose a substantial risk to the larger community. By
providing a reservoir of infection, a cluster of unimmunized persons can
defeat the general herd immunity of a community. As these infected persons
mix with members of the larger community, they will expose those who are
susceptible to contagion.”
As seen not to vaccine children can represent a danger
for their future, there should be no ultimate power of parents to prevent
vaccine jabs.
|
It is a parental
right to decide about vaccinations for a child. Through birth, the child and the parent have a binding agreement that is
supported within the society. This agreement involves a set of rights and
duties aimed at, and justified by, the welfare of the child. Through that
(according to texts from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): parents
owe their children an “open future,” understood as one where they become
adults capable of choosing their own conception of the good. As custodian,
the parent is under a limited obligation to work and organize his or her life
around the welfare and development of the child, for the child's sake.
Concomitantly, the parent is endowed with a special kind of authority over
the child.
It therefore is the
courtesy of a parent to decide what the best possible outcome is for a child.
If the parent believes the child will be safer and better off in society
without being given vaccine it is the parent’s right to decide not to give
vaccination to the child.
Also the American Academy of Pediatrics reports, that
refusing the immunization might not put children at risk, as long as they
live in a well immunized community and can benefit from the “herd immunity”.
They state: “Even in a community with high immunization rates, the risk
assumed by an unimmunized child is likely to be greater than the risks
associated with immunization. However, the risk remains low, and in most
cases the parent who refuses immunizations on behalf of his or her child
living in a well-immunized community does not place the child at substantial
risk of serious harm.”
|
The argument of “bad vaccines” is a very popular one.
However, scientifically seen this arguments is flawed in many aspects.
First of all many of the examples used in arguments
suggesting vaccination is dangerous and therefore should not be used, is very
old. Many refer to examples from the 60s or 70s, which in medicine is highly
flawed as science every few years significantly advances, improves the level
of knowledge and reduces possible side effects. And even though many believe
in the damages caused by vaccines retrospective studies disprove this point:
1. Autism
Scientists at Columbia University Mailman School of
Public Health's Center for Infection and Immunity and researchers at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Massachusetts General Hospital,
and Trinity College Dublin, evaluated bowel tissues from 25 children with
autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone
(controls) by real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR for the presence of
measles virus RNA. Samples were analyzed in three laboratories blinded to
diagnosis, including one wherein the original findings suggesting a link
between measles virus and autism had been reported.
"Our results are inconsistent with a causal role
for MMR vaccine as a trigger or exacerbate of either GI difficulties or
autism," states Mady Hornig, associate professor of Epidemiology and
director of translational research in the Center for Infection and Immunity
in the Mailman School, and co-corresponding author of the study. "The
work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that
autism with GI complaints is related to MMR vaccine exposure. We found no
relationship between the timing of MMR vaccine and the onset of either GI
complaints or autism.
Many parents came to believe that vaccines caused their
children's autism because the symptoms of autism appeared after the child
received a vaccination. On a psychological level, that assumption and
connection makes sense; but on a logical level, it is a clear and common
fallacy with a fancy Latin name: post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this,
therefore because of it"). They just need someone to blame for the
disease of their child.
2. Allergies and vaccines
A recent (2011) study of a German Health Institute
concludes that in comparing the occurrence of infections and allergies in
vaccinated and unvaccinated children and adolescents. These include
bronchitis, eczema, colds, and gastrointestinal infection. The only
difference they found is that unvaccinated children and adolescents differ
from their vaccinated peers merely in terms of the frequency of vaccine
preventable diseases. These include pertussis, mumps, or measles. As
expected, the risk of contracting these diseases is substantially lower in
vaccinated children and adolescents.
|
Vaccines have severe
side effects. Some of the used vaccines may
have severe side effects, therefore we should let every individual asses the
risk and make choices on his/her own. Besides introducing foreign proteins
and even live viruses into the bloodstream, each vaccine has its own preservative,
neutralizer and carrying agent, none of which are indigenous to the body. For
instance, the triple antigen, DPT, which includes Diphtheria, Pertussis,
Tetanus vaccine, contains the following poisons: Formaldehyde, Mercury, and
aluminum phosphate, and that's from the Physician's Desk Reference, 1980. The
packet insert accompanying the vaccine, lists the following poisons: aluminum
potassium sulfate, a mercury derivative called Thimersol and sodium
phosphate. The packet insert for the polio vaccine lists monkey kidney cell
culture, lactalbumin hydrozylate, antibiotics and calf serum. The packet
insert for the MMR vaccine produced by Merck Sharp and Dhome which is for
measles, mumps and rubella lists chick embryo and neomycin, which is a
mixture of antibiotics.
Evidence also
suggests that immunizations damage the immune system itself. By focusing
exclusively on increased antibody production, which is only one aspect of the
immune process, immunizations isolate dysfunction and allow it to substitute
for the entire immune response, because vaccines trick the body so that it
will no longer initiate a generalized response. They accomplished what the
entire immune system seems to have been evolved to prevent. That is, they
place the virus directly into the blood and give it access to the major
immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it.
The long-term
persistence of viruses and other foreign proteins within the cells of the
immune system has been implicated in a number of chronic and degenerative
diseases. In 1976 Dr. Robert Simpson of Rutgers university addressed science
writers at a seminar of the American Cancer Society, and pointed out the
following. "Immunization programs against flu, measles, mumps, polio and
so forth may actually be seeding humans with RNA to form latent pro viruses
in cells throughout the body. These latent pro viruses could be molecules in
search of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis,
lupus, Parkinson's disease, and perhaps cancer."
Vaccines may cause a child who is genetically
predisposed to have autism. If the trend of increased Thimerosal in
vaccinations correlates so well with the trend of increased autistic
diagnoses, there is a link. Thimerosal in vaccinations (which means 'contains
mercury') causes autism. Too many times has a child been completely healthy,
and then a vaccine containing Thimerosal is injected into the child. The
child becomes ill, stops responding visually and verbally, and is then
diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
|
0 Comments