Home > Health & Fitness > Pediatrics
Results so far:
| Yes | 53% | 672 votes | Total: 1259 votes | |
| No | 47% | 587 votes |
Yes
Created on: March 24, 2008 Last Updated: January 11, 2010
Less than a hundred years ago, an estimated 50 to 100 million people on Earth died from a flu pandemic. In America, even up until the 1950’s, outbreaks of cholera, polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough, chickenpox, smallpox, typhoid, diphtheria, tuberculosis and others were a regular part of life; and death. Then something changed, vaccines against these dreadful diseases became available, and children got them, in most cases because their parents were all to familiar with the diseases vaccinations could prevent.
Yes, there have been isolated cases of people catching the disease from the vaccine, but such instances are statistically insignificant when compared to the number of people who would have contracted the disease had they not been vaccinated. Furthermore, much safer dead or inactive, as opposed to live forms of vaccines are used now. The question here however, is not the effectiveness of vaccines to control disease, but the authority of the government to mandate them for children. Actually, contrary to what many people believe, there are no federal government mandates in the United States for children to be vaccinated, although most if not all states require children to show proof of vaccination before admittance into grammar school.
Today in the United States, and for that matter most countries in the western world, infant mortality is not an issue although there are still conditions such as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) that result in infant deaths. The simple reason 99.4 percent of American children survive to adulthood today, is the vaccinations they receive in the first year of life. Ironically, in 2009 the United States was ranked 46th in the world in infant mortality, while in countries like Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Japan and others with socialized medicine and mandated infant vaccination programs, the infant mortality rate was half that in America.
In order to be most effective, inoculation with the vaccinations we are talking about here, needs to be administered in the early years of life. The problem is, in the United States, an infant child has no rights. They are dependent on the advocacy of their parents to know best, and to do best for them. Certainly, parents should have the strongest voice in deciding what is best for their children, but in this respect parents can also be the weakest link, and a detriment to a child's health and well being. Today, it is all to common to see drug addicted mothers and abusive fathers who’s ability to give their children the kind of care they deserve is at best questionable. All to often, and in many cases far to late, the government and society must step in in such cases to become a child's advocate and dare we say, protect them against their own parents. A whole lot more American children will be damaged physically or mentally, or even die a premature death today, because of parental abuse or neglect, than from any vaccinations they receive before age 6.
We can’t solve every problem children might face during their formative years, although we shouldn’t give up on the proposition either. Today, through vaccination we can at least assure, in the case of many childhood diseases that killed children of bygone eras, that American children will have the opportunity to survive childhood and live a healthy life. Should this be no less than one of those inalienable human rights we so cherish? Shouldn’t every child have the right to be vaccinated and that right guaranteed through governmental mandate of a specific set of safe and effective vaccines?
For 2009, the Center for Disease Control(CDC) reported that 95% of American children entering kindergarten received the basic vaccine protocol by the time they started school. This is good, but what about the other five percent? There are three predominant reasons these one in twenty children failed to receive benefit of vaccination, all of these reason have to do with their parents. Some of these children had parents who denied them the vaccination on religious or other ideological grounds, others because they don’t believe the vaccines are safe, and finally, some parents just don’t care or couldn’t be bothered to get their children vaccinated. None of these children were denied the vaccinations because their parents couldn’t afford them. Every state has social well fair programs that provide the shots for free. What every state does not do however, is afford these children the right to receive the vaccinations irregardless of their parents status of belief or personal convenience.
This is not a question of ideological belief or political persuasion, nor should it be. This is a question of the most basic human right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The inoculation that is needed to protect this nations children against ideologies, political extremism and just simple parental neglect, is no less than a federal mandate that all children must be vaccinated. This is their right, and no person, not even the child's parents, should be allowed to deprive them of it. We may debate what vaccines are appropriate under mandate, but those which have been proven safe and effective in combating the myriad of diseases summarized in the first paragraph of this article should be a bear minimum requirement for all children in America.
As one who remembers classmates in the 50’s who hobbled around with crutches and iron leg braces, the result of polio; as one who lost classmates and friends in the 60’s who died from other diseases which today are non existent because vaccines have been developed which prevent their onset; because this American believes in the inalienable rights of every other American, including the right to be vaccinated, the answer to this debate question must be yes.
I’m obviously not a kid any more, but never had the measles nor was vaccinated against them when I was, as no vaccine then existed. A few weeks ago I was injected with a vaccination against Shingles, at the urging of my VA doctor. Several years back, I saw my dad horrendously suffer from this latent form of measles and I’m happy to know I will never have to deal with that. But when I hear of resurgent outbreaks of measles and the other dreadful childhood diseases, because parents are precluding their children from being vaccinated against them, I am disheartened that their government as well has let them down by not mandating the vaccines for them in the first place, as is the case now in so many other countries.
Today there is no federal government mandate in the U.S. for vaccination of children against devastating childhood diseases. The better question might be, why not?
Learn more about this author, John Traveler.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Created on: April 27, 2009
Of course vaccines should NOT be mandated. It's so silly when you really think about it.
"But seatbelts for children are mandated," you say, "why not vaccines?" It's simple. Vaccines hold very serious risks including brain damage and death, while seatbelts do not. Parents should not be forced to vaccinate any more than they should be forced to knowingly expose their children to a deadly disease.
But the benefits of vaccines always outweigh the risks, right? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on which expert you ask. It cannot be denied that vaccines carry serious risks. To think that those serious risks are so rare that it is impossible for your child to be affected is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. Read: Vaccine Injury Table. In case you're wondering, anaphylactic shock is a severe, rapid, and sometimes fatal hypersensitivity reaction to a substance, especially a vaccine, penicillin, shellfish or insect venom.
There are two major conflicting beliefs when it comes to vaccines:
1) Vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary
and
2) Vaccines are unsafe, ineffective and unnecesary.
If you think either of these two views is more scientifically valid than the other, you may need to think again. As far as conclusive evidence goes, there has not been any scientific proof of either of the two beliefs. Despite the efforts made by much of the mainstream medical community to convince the public that vaccine are safe and necessary, there is no solid proof of this claim.
We really don't know how safe or effective vaccines are, because we've never seen a long-term large-scale independent study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine studies are usually small and examine vaccinated vs. vaccinated individuals.
Don't think that's a big deal? How would you like it if I conducted a study in which I examined smokers who smoked menthol cigarettes vs. smokers who smoked regular cigarettes, with the intention of determining if smoking is safe or not? I found no difference in the two groups as far as cancer rates went, so I published my findings and shouted my conclusion:
Cigarette s are completely safe and DO NOT cause cancer!
Would you buy it? I wouldn't, and I don't buy vaccine conclusions either, thus far, because like I said, the proper studies have not been done.
Another vaccine study we have not seen is safety studies for the individual vaccine ingredients. How can we be sure of the safety of injecting questionable ingredients such as aluminum and formaldehyde into small babies without the proper studies? Another simple answer here: we can't.
We have also not researched the subset of children who have regressed developmentally after vaccines. Parents who claim their children became ill and then regressed into autism are often labeled as crazy...and yet these children have not been studied! Also, vaccines contain ingredients which are labeled as neurotoxins. To think that child who is going through rapid neurological development could be injected with multiple vaccines containing neurotoxic ingredients and then could experience neurological effects from the vaccine? "Preposterous!" says Paul Offit, "A baby could safetly be injected with 10,000 vaccines!" (Note the sarcasm, please, and look into Paul Offit if you're not sure who he is.)
We haven't researched susceptiblity; in other words, which children may be more at risk of suffering negative reactions from vaccines.
Lack of liability is another issue preventing a reasonable person from thinking vaccines should be mandated. Let's revisit the seatbelt analogy for this one. If you properly strapped a seatbelt onto your child, and the seatbelt (before you even started your car) managed to somehow strangle your child to death, would the company who made the defective seatbelt be responsible? Or would you say that you were responsible since you put the seatbelt on your child?
I'm thinking there would be a lawsuit on this one. A very big one.
But when a vaccine injures or kills a child, the vaccine manufacturer isn't held responsible. There is a federal fund called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation program which a parent must report to in order to begin the hoop jumping process of seeking justice for a vaccine injured or killed child.
Dig deeply into this program and what you find may shock you. The parents who are compensated are often ordered not to speak to the public about their injured children. The settlements they recieve do not even come from the vaccine makers...the fund is collected from a tax added to the vaccines (so every time you purchase a vaccine, you're helping to pay for someone else's vaccine injured child! Doesn't that make you feel special?)
There's some other reasons why vaccines shouldn't be mandated, including religious or philosophical objections, but I'll let what I've written already mull around in your brain and we can delve into these other reasons later.
Learn more about this author, Kellie Bischof.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.