anybody want to debate about choice?

[emmagk]

While the law does not mandate vaccinations I think it's unfair to exclude unvaxed kids from school.

I'd like to see the law changed to make vaccination a legal requirement for all children like taxes, not just for school attendance. We can talk about personal freedoms all we want but when your personal choice has the possibility to kill others then I think protecting the masses trumps individual freedom. For example you can't drink and drive because of the risk of death or injury to yourself and others so your freedom to drink then drive your car has been removed.

Is that clearer? I can't always write my thoughts coherently

eta-tag sisterjanet

[Deleted]

Feb 1, 2015 23:49:40 GMT -5 @kitchen said:

The whole thing gets so tricky.  I mean is it really a direct health risk to my child if you decide not to get your kid the Hep B vaccine?  Eh?  Probably not.  

Do I think that if you choose not to have your child get the HPV or Hep B vaccine that you're being negligent?  I dunno?  Not really my hill to die on.  Not my kid.

MMR?  Yes.  It's different.

What about flu?  From the standpoint of actual risk to my children, flu is probably one of the more important ones.  It's certainly not required though right now.  

I'm really really pro vaccine.  I'm just not sure that a blanket "thou shalt have your parents get you all of the vaccines or you won't be allowed in our schools" is appropriate.

In our county if you aren't vaccinated and the are infections at your school you're not allowed to attend for three weeks. In high school that could be the difference between maintaining the GPA you need to get into the college you planned to attend and having your acceptance revoked (or at least that's how it was at my high school).  It's no light consequence.

I totally agree with all of this.

Especially the tricky part.  When you start taking choices away from people, where does it end?  Where do you draw the line?
Even if everyone was forced to vaccinate, there would always be something else putting our children at risk.

Like @kitchen said... negligent and illogical people will be that way no matter what laws you put in place.  

And, think of this... even if you make not vaccinating illegal, there will be doctors who falsify medical records for monetary gain.  Then you still have the risk, but it's no longer in the open where everyone is aware of it and could potentially cause a bigger risk because you are no longer paying attention to that risk.

All we can do as parents is to educate ourselves and do our best to protect our children from harm.  

[becole]

Feb 2, 2015 12:01:45 GMT -5 aimeefarrahfowler said:

Feb 2, 2015 11:58:55 GMT -5 comicSans said:

Which one is daddy?

This thread hurts my brain. Can we just focus on things like poop and beauty products?

@kitchen is mommy, for sure.

I'm gonna need you to explain how you made this decision.

[aimeefarrahfowler]

Feb 2, 2015 12:03:16 GMT -5 becole said:

Feb 2, 2015 12:01:45 GMT -5 aimeefarrahfowler said:

@kitchen is mommy, for sure.

I'm gonna need you to explain how you made this decision.

because she won. that's how it went in my house, anyway

[athn64]

Feb 2, 2015 12:03:57 GMT -5 @kitchen said:

We're both mommies. No need to impose heteronormative stuffs.

ILY.

[becole]

Yes we are coparenting mommies

[sisterjanet]

Feb 2, 2015 12:01:55 GMT -5 emmagk said:

While the law does not mandate vaccinations I think it's unfair to exclude unvaxed kids from school.

I'd like to see the law changed to make vaccination a legal requirement for all children like taxes, not just for school attendance. We can talk about personal freedoms all we want but when your personal choice has the possibility to kill others then I think protecting the masses trumps individual freedom. For example you can't drink and drive because of the risk of death or injury to yourself and others so your freedom to drink then drive your car has been removed.

Is that clearer? I can't always write my thoughts coherently

eta-tag sisterjanet

I can't always write my thoughts clearly either.  Forums are good because if I need to I can think and come back to the conversation.  Thank you for clarifying.  How much of a chance of your actions harming or killing others warrants making a law?  Banning texting [while driving] seemed like a good idea because that causes mortal peril to self and others, and yet that law as far as I know isn't reducing numbers of distracted driving accidents, and in fact causes some people who don't want to get caught texting to hide the phone in their lap, so they're looking away from the road longer and are in effect more dangerous than before.

The blog/article thing actually addresses comparing drunk driving laws and mandatory vaccine laws.  In a nutshell, drunk driving is dangerous.  Not being vaccinated is dangerous.  The likelihood of bad outcomes is a whole lot higher in the case of drunk driving.  Quoted below.

"Even in Disneyland, ground zero of this measles outbreak, 95 have been infected out of the 15 million who’ve attended the park in the last year. And for those who contract the illness, it will almost assuredly not be fatal (yes, I know it can be, but I said almost because the fatality rate is so low). The risk is slight by every definition.

That’s one reason why you can’t compare unvaccinated kids with, say, a drunk driver — because the chances of killing someone while driving intoxicated are much, much, much, much greater than the chances of opting out of vaccine, becoming infected with a dangerous illness, then spreading that illness to another person who then dies."

[sisterjanet]

Feb 2, 2015 11:58:55 GMT -5 comicSans said:

Feb 2, 2015 11:21:35 GMT -5 scout251 said:

It's like mommy & daddy fighting

Which one is daddy?

This thread hurts my brain. Can we just focus on things like poop and beauty products?

(sarcasm?  Seriously, I can't tell.)

1) Can I just say, I love this thread.  I feel like a plant getting sun and water (metaphorically speaking) from thinking about all the perspectives.  Despite being a somewhat fraught topic it's stayed really respectful and candid, and that makes me so happy.

2) If you don't want to talk about this, and you'd rather talk about that, then could you have your fun talking about that and maybe skipping this?  Please?  I mean, if you're being sarcastic ok, nevermind, and if you're being serious of course you can participate in any conversation you want even if only to roll your eyes at me.  I know this kind of conversation is not to everyone's taste.  I just... I hope you understand my perspective I guess.  

[comicSans]

If I don't read it how will I form opinions about all the posters?

[emmagk]

Feb 2, 2015 12:18:19 GMT -5 sisterjanet said:

Feb 2, 2015 12:01:55 GMT -5 emmagk said:

While the law does not mandate vaccinations I think it's unfair to exclude unvaxed kids from school.

I'd like to see the law changed to make vaccination a legal requirement for all children like taxes, not just for school attendance. We can talk about personal freedoms all we want but when your personal choice has the possibility to kill others then I think protecting the masses trumps individual freedom. For example you can't drink and drive because of the risk of death or injury to yourself and others so your freedom to drink then drive your car has been removed.

Is that clearer? I can't always write my thoughts coherently

eta-tag sisterjanet

I can't always write my thoughts clearly either.  Forums are good because if I need to I can think and come back to the conversation.  Thank you for clarifying.  How much of a chance of your actions harming or killing others warrants making a law?  Banning texting [while driving] seemed like a good idea because that causes mortal peril to self and others, and yet that law as far as I know isn't reducing numbers of distracted driving accidents, and in fact causes some people who don't want to get caught texting to hide the phone in their lap, so they're looking away from the road longer and are in effect more dangerous than before.

The blog/article thing actually addresses comparing drunk driving laws and mandatory vaccine laws.  In a nutshell, drunk driving is dangerous.  Not being vaccinated is dangerous.  The likelihood of bad outcomes is a whole lot higher in the case of drunk driving.  Quoted below.

"Even in Disneyland, ground zero of this measles outbreak, 95 have been infected out of the 15 million who’ve attended the park in the last year. And for those who contract the illness, it will almost assuredly not be fatal (yes, I know it can be, but I said almost because the fatality rate is so low). The risk is slight by every definition.

That’s one reason why you can’t compare unvaccinated kids with, say, a drunk driver — because the chances of killing someone while driving intoxicated are much, much, much, much greater than the chances of opting out of vaccine, becoming infected with a dangerous illness, then spreading that illness to another person who then dies."

I completely agree that drink driving does kill more people and probably always will but if the anti vax movement continues to pick up steam then these deseases that are fairly uncommon now could start to make a big resurgence. I think it would be better to eradicate certain deseases while we can than continue to let them spread. 

[athn64]

Just dropping this here. I am willfully not joining in the debate, but this made me sad.

Roald Dahl's letter

[SpinsOffResonance]

Feb 2, 2015 12:18:19 GMT -5 sisterjanet said:

Feb 2, 2015 12:01:55 GMT -5 emmagk said:

While the law does not mandate vaccinations I think it's unfair to exclude unvaxed kids from school.

I'd like to see the law changed to make vaccination a legal requirement for all children like taxes, not just for school attendance. We can talk about personal freedoms all we want but when your personal choice has the possibility to kill others then I think protecting the masses trumps individual freedom. For example you can't drink and drive because of the risk of death or injury to yourself and others so your freedom to drink then drive your car has been removed.

Is that clearer? I can't always write my thoughts coherently

eta-tag sisterjanet

I can't always write my thoughts clearly either.  Forums are good because if I need to I can think and come back to the conversation.  Thank you for clarifying.  How much of a chance of your actions harming or killing others warrants making a law?  Banning texting [while driving] seemed like a good idea because that causes mortal peril to self and others, and yet that law as far as I know isn't reducing numbers of distracted driving accidents, and in fact causes some people who don't want to get caught texting to hide the phone in their lap, so they're looking away from the road longer and are in effect more dangerous than before.

The blog/article thing actually addresses comparing drunk driving laws and mandatory vaccine laws.  In a nutshell, drunk driving is dangerous.  Not being vaccinated is dangerous.  The likelihood of bad outcomes is a whole lot higher in the case of drunk driving.  Quoted below.

"Even in Disneyland, ground zero of this measles outbreak, 95 have been infected out of the 15 million who’ve attended the park in the last year. And for those who contract the illness, it will almost assuredly not be fatal (yes, I know it can be, but I said almost because the fatality rate is so low). The risk is slight by every definition.

That’s one reason why you can’t compare unvaccinated kids with, say, a drunk driver — because the chances of killing someone while driving intoxicated are much, much, much, much greater than the chances of opting out of vaccine, becoming infected with a dangerous illness, then spreading that illness to another person who then dies."

This might be the case now because most children are vaccinated. So being infected and spreading rare diseases is still rare. But the more people stop vaccinating their kids, the more diseases and outbreaks we're going to see. In 2000, measles was eradicated from the US. Last year there were over 600 cases.

[buster]

Feb 2, 2015 11:07:30 GMT -5 becole said:

I'm not talking about common sense. I'm talking about how we should structure laws. Can we just ban the anti vax folks? I really don't care if schools ban allergy foods or not.

I believe the Supreme Court has determined "religion" to mean any personally held belief, so basically, no.

[comicSans]

I suppose I can offer a real opinion while my child stuffs her adorable face. I'm generally anti-legislation, pro-education when it comes to fixing problems that originate in ignorance and fear.

I agree with @usernameedit in some respects...slippery slope arguments aren't always great, but I think requiring vaccs could set a dangerous precedent. As an aside, anyone follow the Justina Pelletier case?

Beyond that, the funding and implementation angles are always big issues with new legislation, and when you can't prove that it would really make a difference, it's a tough sell. Also, requiring parents to provide proof of vaccination to enroll in school is one thing, but giving various agencies and individuals access to your child's complete medical history so you can penalize those who don't vax make me uneasy.

[buster]

It's about safety/security vs. personal freedom. A lot of hot topics boil down to the same thing.

[lissiehoya]

I think a big problem in all this is that we've lost a sense of community and the common good in the USA. Personal freedom trumps all. If we cared more about the whole instead of the individual, more people would see the logic in vaccination (I would hope).

[aimeefarrahfowler]

Feb 2, 2015 12:50:56 GMT -5 athn64 said:

Just dropping this here. I am willfully not joining in the debate, but this made me sad.

Roald Dahl's letter

Just don't read the comments. I never learn. Comments make me so stabby.

[lissiehoya]

Feb 2, 2015 13:15:09 GMT -5 aimeefarrahfowler said:

Feb 2, 2015 12:50:56 GMT -5 athn64 said:

Just dropping this here. I am willfully not joining in the debate, but this made me sad.

Roald Dahl's letter

Just don't read the comments. I never learn. Comments make me so stabby.

I thought about reading the comments, then figured that it would just make me mad. For once, I abstained.

[microworm]

Feb 2, 2015 12:50:56 GMT -5 athn64 said:

Just dropping this here. I am willfully not joining in the debate, but this made me sad.

Roald Dahl's letter

Heartbreaking.

[buster]

I feel like I need a disclaimer for my responses. Pro-vaxxing, big govt loving, but tired of the angry vaccine rants that are taking over Facebook.

[buster]

Another thought: really this entire situation is caused by a group of people who don't trust science or medicine. Why is that? What will change that? Anything? Conspiracy theorists gonna theorize no matter what?

[buster]

And thanks, sisterjanet, for helping me work toward overcoming noob status.

[aimeefarrahfowler]

Feb 2, 2015 13:34:12 GMT -5 buster said:

Another thought: really this entire situation is caused by a group of people who don't trust science or medicine. Why is that? What will change that? Anything? Conspiracy theorists gonna theorize no matter what?

I don't think they're necessarily "conspiracy theorists".. I think the whole thing is caused by a wealth of inaccurate information that is easily shared and misinterpreted.

People will believe anything they read, and anyone can type up something and post it online and people too (stupid? looking for a better word... easily misled?) will buy into it!

Same kind of people who see an Onion headline on facebook, repost it with something like "SMH, I can't believe this! This is what's wrong with our country!" and never even pause to think it might not be real. 

I really don't know what can change people at this point. A polio outbreak?

[buster]

In my experience, anti-vaxers are pretty quick to say big pharma is in the pediatricians' pockets, the studies on vaccines are all falsified, etc.

[aimeefarrahfowler]

Feb 2, 2015 13:43:17 GMT -5 buster said:

In my experience, anti-vaxers are pretty quick to say big pharma is in the pediatricians' pockets, the studies on vaccines are all falsified, etc.

Ah, I haven't really run into that variety. Just the old "vaccines cause autism!" kind. Also, I usually stop reading anything anti-vaxx about two sentences in, so that may be why I hadn't heard that.

[buster]

Feb 2, 2015 13:46:45 GMT -5 aimeefarrahfowler said:

Feb 2, 2015 13:43:17 GMT -5 buster said:

In my experience, anti-vaxers are pretty quick to say big pharma is in the pediatricians' pockets, the studies on vaccines are all falsified, etc.

Ah, I haven't really run into that variety. Just the old "vaccines cause autism!" kind. Also, I usually stop reading anything anti-vaxx about two sentences in, so that may be why I hadn't heard that.

I have a bad habit of reading the comments on things even if I don't read the thing itself. And even when I yell "stahp reading that, you are wasting your lyfe on hate reading!"

[haykay13]

www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2014/01/growing_up_unvaccinated_a_healthy_lifestyle_couldn_t_prevent_many_childhood.html

I shared this article on facebook and found out another family member is anti vax and hasn't vaccinated any of her 5 kids. SMH.
She said she doesn't vax because kids that get vaxxed get colds more often... What! I would rather my kid have a cold than the measles!

[becole]

I think one way to actually make a difference is to continue having discussions about this in the public and on social media sites like Facebook. I know a pp said they were tired of the FB vaccine stuff but I think the court of public opinion is really the way to go here. There was a wave of time when people could say, "I don't vaccinate and I'm doing the best for my child because of the possible autism link". Celebs got on the bandwagon. Now that the autism link has been debunked, I think it has to be said by anyone and everyone- that's not true, etc... in order for this to even become on the radar of the legislative branch, celebs, and the average citizen.

My example would be the gay marriage wave. It became more and more popular that people were pro gay marriage, and then people became loudly and pubicly pro, then it finally got the attention of senators trying to get votes, then made its way to the attention of the Supreme Court. I can only hope that being loud about it, long enough, might be enough to get the anti vaxxers to a very small and insignificant group.

I guess even if legislation would prove difficult, it's important to continue to talk about it.

[katzalia]

Feb 2, 2015 13:09:38 GMT -5 comicSans said:

I suppose I can offer a real opinion while my child stuffs her adorable face. I'm generally anti-legislation, pro-education when it comes to fixing problems that originate in ignorance and fear.

I agree with @usernameedit in some respects...slippery slope arguments aren't always great, but I think requiring vaccs could set a dangerous precedent. As an aside, anyone follow the Justina Pelletier case?

Beyond that, the funding and implementation angles are always big issues with new legislation, and when you can't prove that it would really make a difference, it's a tough sell. Also, requiring parents to provide proof of vaccination to enroll in school is one thing, but giving various agencies and individuals access to your child's complete medical history so you can penalize those who don't vax make me uneasy.

Yes. But I think it's oversimplifying to think that educating/providing information will change the minds of folks who believe vaccines are poison or part of a scheme by big pharma, the government, and the medical community. 

[sisterjanet]

Feb 2, 2015 13:39:18 GMT -5 aimeefarrahfowler said:

Feb 2, 2015 13:34:12 GMT -5 buster said:

Another thought: really this entire situation is caused by a group of people who don't trust science or medicine. Why is that? What will change that? Anything? Conspiracy theorists gonna theorize no matter what?

I don't think they're necessarily "conspiracy theorists".. I think the whole thing is caused by a wealth of inaccurate information that is easily shared and misinterpreted.

People will believe anything they read, and anyone can type up something and post it online and people too (stupid? looking for a better word... easily misled?) will buy into it!

Same kind of people who see an Onion headline on facebook, repost it with something like "SMH, I can't believe this! This is what's wrong with our country!" and never even pause to think it might not be real. 

I really don't know what can change people at this point. A polio outbreak?

Sad confession: The first time I saw an Onion article, I thought it was real.  I had never heard of fake/comedy news before and it never occurred to me that there would be such a thing as deliberately false news.  Biased, sure, but at that point (in college something like twelve years ago) I hadn't seen that kind of satire before.