Health & Fitness >
Pediatrics
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould American children have the right to be vaccinated?
Results so far:
| Yes | 68% | 127 votes | Total: 186 votes | |
| No | 32% | 59 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesWhat a question. Asking if American children should have the right to be vaccinated is like asking if American children should have the right to good health. Shouldn't they? Vaccination is immunisation or innoculation with vaccine with the aim of protecting against a particular disease. The right of every American child to have himself or herself protected against diseases should be non-negotiable. Diseases like chicken-pox, smallpox, tuberculosis, polio, cholera and whooping cough are vacinnable diseases that should not ravage any society developed or underdeveloped at this century.
American government is committing a lot of fund into research and development of vaccines and drugs which can be used to protect American citizens including children. It will be a waste of money if children are not allowed to have access to these inventions that can protect them against diseases and give them right to live longer. No matter the source, either from parents or children themeselves, children's right to immunisation for healthy living is non-negotiable. If a child is allowed to live with a vaccinable disease it is as good as allowing a family in America to breed tetanus or mosquitoes or human immuno virus (HIV).
America's future is a factor of how healthy or otherwise American children are. If their right to vaccination is unsecured there parents out of carelessness can feign ignorance and not protect them against external threat to their life. Polio killed alot of children and resulted into national disaster because of its magnitude in America in the past. Polio was able to be eradicated in America because of vaccination of children. A child who has been attacked by polio will not be able to walk and will become responsibility of not only his or her family but of government. If there can be legislation against medical practitioners helping their sick patients to die, there should be legislation to enhance good living.
Government duties include to protect the citizens of America from externat aggression and to provide a conducive atmosphere for living. If the children are not legally protected against ravaging diseases, what responsibilities is the government providing then. Breast cancer is a disease that has caused a lot of havocs in the life of females in the past. Now there is vaccine that should be taken before a female child clocks thirteen years old in order to be protected for life. If the parents of a girl, for one reason or the other, decided not to immunised their underage girl against cancer, should the government keep mum? The right of the child to good health is just like the right to life. If a child cannot be helped to have his or her right to good health, then he or she should not be legislated to live at all.
Debating whether it is proper to help an American child to proclaim his or her right to immunisation is like debating on a child to parental care. No religion or social belief will support attempting murder or suicide. A child that refuses to take innoculation when others are taking them is trying to commit suicide. A parent or guardian of a child that refuses to let the child have immunisation is attempting murder. Just as there are laws to protect children from abuse, so should be laws to protect their untampered rights to vaccination.
Healthy children determines a future healthy nation. Campaign should be ongoing to let parents and guardians be aware of the fact that their children not only belong to them, they are the future of America and that America is interested in their future wellbeing. There should be programme to ensure that parents respect American laws more than they respect their personal and religious beliefs.
Learn more about this author, Olufemi Oyedele.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The question should read should parents decide what their children should have in the way of vaccines especially with today's schedule. This debate will continue until vaccines are proven safe and the harmful chemicals are removed for safer ingredients such as saline over mercury which is used as a preservative.
More often today parents are questioning the mandatory HepB vaccines and multiple viruses in one shot which is less expensive for the drug company, but more dangerous for a baby. In some hospitals a mother and child cannot leave the hospital until they get the HepB shot, which is an act of totalitarianism without regard to the health of a baby. This state control of the health and medical business has been scared by drug lobbyists and mass media not by parents.
Mercury should not be in any vaccines, but today we still find toxic chemicals and virus strains in flu shots and there are no assurances that all the vaccines do not contain mercury which is poisonous. In the 1950's there were no chicken pox or measles vaccines because children got them naturally and that is how they develop their immune system. To vaccinate against these diseases is not necessary for they are mild, childhood illnesses not dangerous diseases as drug manufacturers falsely claim in the marketing of their products. There certainly were not HepB shots for a one or two day old baby and HepB is more common in drug users and through intimate contact.
Parents nowadays are having chicken pox parties so their children are exposed at the proper age. Some children actually have contracted chicken pox due to the vaccine itself which is not supposed to happen but it does. There is also a basic distrust of drug companies because of the number of recalls and damages that drugs have wreaked on society. In all cases doctors receive their drug information from drug representatives who have been known to give the wrong or often misleading information about their products.
Just as there are gun laws protecting the rights of people to carry guns there are laws under the Constitution to protect the rights of parents to decide the proper vaccines for their own children. The state has no business mandating vaccines especially with the content of those vaccines. Further the drug manufacturers through their lobbyists have seen to it that you cannot sue them for any damages to your baby. If your child has permanent brain damage, or seizures as a result of vaccines you are on the hook for millions of dollars of lifetime care and the government will not help you.
The question should be whether parents want to risk a lifetime of medical bills on a system of vaccines which are unproven, and could be mortally dangerous to their child's health. The risks are higher in vaccinating as immediately after a vaccine, children have gone into seizures, hyperactivity, autism, and reduced brain functioning within days.
Babies are susceptible to the effects of inappropriate chemical agents during vulnerable periods of growth and can result in irreversible damage to the developing brain. This causes an increased risk of dysfunction and disease in adulthood. We all treat and hold babies as if they are fragile on the outside and we know that even the slight adverse effects during early development may lead to functional deficits and cognitive problems later in life.
The content of the vaccines such as the swine, avian or SARS viruses which are mixed together, infect the body with foreign bacteria that is some cases are grown inside dead infected monkeys. This scare mongering of death by measles is preposterously for one motive and that is to sell more vaccines. There is no ideological reasons that parents do not wish to vaccinate for all 36 vaccines today. It is more an act of protecting their children against an onslaught from a government that is influenced by financial campaign contributions by the medical and pharmaceutical industries.
The theory that if your child is not vaccinated against measles and gives it to another child again is an argument that just does not hold water. Firstly is says that kids that are vaccinated should have immunity because that is the reasoning behind vaccines. Secondly, it says much about how effective vaccines are if drug marketing reps say unvaccinated kids are unsafe to vaccinated kids -because after all aren't they vaccinated against the measles?
You see the truth has been twisted in so many ways that parents do not believe the or trust the drug trade. We know from our own grandparents and parents that children are supposed to get these basic children's illnesses and they stay home until they are well again. The hype has gone too far and a tipping point has been reached and the government has to make drug makers prove their products are not harmful. There is no insurance policy against vaccines damaging your babies immune system which is supposed to last a lifetime. To inflict a newborn with all these toxins just days into its life and when they just start breathing cannot be a good thing.
What needs to happen is that drug makers must stop using harmful chemicals such as mercury, formaldehyde, and virus serums from dead infected animals. Vaccines must include ingredients of benefit and even a Vitamin C shot would be preferable than what is in a vaccine today.
The worst part is that parents are being emotionally manipulated into thinking they are harming their child if the refuse certain vaccines, and that is simply not true and it is misleading them. It is up to the drug makers to clean up their products - our children demand and deserve better. We are now living through a drugged, pill-popping and vaccinated to death world and must return to safer and better ways of keeping ourselves healthy.
Learn more about this author, Teris.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
