Anonymous
Anonymous asked in HealthAlternative Medicine · 9 years ago

whats a personal reason for not wanting vaccines to be compulsory?

i know it should be like, 'i had a family member who died because of vaccines' etc but i don't think i do have family who have been effected by vaccines, so what would be a reason coming from a personal view? if i was saying vaccines should be compulsory then i could say something like "although i have no proof that i have been protected by disease because of these vaccines in future they could help prevent a deadly disease from..." etc but because i am doing that they should NOT by compulsory i don't know what to write for the paragraph that is from a personal view. any ideas would help heaps!

11 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Except the bottom line is that none of those are valid reasons.

    Baring genuine medical reasons, childhood vaccines should be compulsory for everyone. You are living as part of a society, your rights effectively end with the next person. One persons choice not to vaccinate, directly puts another at risk.

    Minx is of course ignorant and misinformed. The dose matters. You are exposed to all those things in the environment "naturally" anyway. Not to mention the fact Thimerosal was removed from the required childhood vaccines a decade ago. Nothing is injected into your veins.

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

    Edit: This time, at least Lighty is asking about what he doesn't understand rather than the other quacks who clearly don't know what they are talking about, but assume they do..

    "What I don't understand is why heard immunity is necessary for the vaccine to be effective."

    If everyone is vaccinated, it's much harder for the disease to pass between people who are not. Not just those who choose not to vaccinate, but those who don't respond to vaccines (remember no vaccine is 100% effective), and those who cannot have vaccines for various medical reasons. If enough people are immune, it confers universal protection since the disease cannot survive in the community.

    "Also why are boosters necessary? "

    Because immunity to everything will wane over time. Even with the natural infection. Some natural infections may provide longer immunity than the vaccine, however you would have to risk the wild infection to get that. In the case of the measles vaccine, most people don't require a booster in adult life.

    In the case of the HPV vaccine, it actually produces longer lasting immunity than the natural infection.

    It also depends on the disease, the person and the vaccine. Hope that clears it up.

    Those, like thenoseknows, who claim, "herd immunity is now passe" don't understand epidemiology and infectious diseases. Where vaccination rates drop, the diseases return. Look whats happening here in the UK right now with measles.

    There are numerous examples of this trend.

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

    Edit: Lighty: I have to ask, are you deliberately trying to make yourself look dumb? It's working very well.

    "Why are you concerned about those of us who choose not to be vaccinated? "

    Again (and this really is the last time, if you don't get it now, you're never going to get it), it's not to protect those who choose not to be vaccinated, it also protects those who are vaccinated and don't respond to it, and those who cannot have vaccines for various medical reasons (e.g. those with allergies to certain components of the vaccine or those who have weakened immune systems, through various diseases or drugs, and don't mount a response to it.) These are the people in society who need protecting.

    "Where is the evidence that immunity wanes overtime? "

    How about basic physiology for starters? The immune cells to a disease will die if they are not stimulated again.

    "And how would you know this? The vaccine hasn't been around for very long. I'd like to see this evidence too please."

    HPV vaccine provides immunity for at least 5 years, realistically, it will probably provide immunity for much longer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16631880?dopt=A...

    HPV evades detection by the immune system, so the antibodies produced from the natural infection are not reliable to protect against a subsequent infections. HPV infects through micro-abrasians, and does not enter the blood stream.

    The vaccine induces high levels of neutralizing antibodies in the blood.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18474288

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14973086

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16949996

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14746038

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    I don't have one (a reason for making them non-compulsory) I'm afraid so can't really answer your question. They should be compulsory UNLESS there is a medical reason why they shouldn't be given. That of course is removing some personal rights to refuse treatment, so I guess that's the only reason it shouldn't be compulsory - for adults - to refuse treatments.

    If an adult refuses treatment on behalf of a child then the court of protection should review the case.

    As for "Doctor" Lighty - for someone who claims to be a primary health care provider it's a little worrying that the concept of herd immunity and vaccine response is lacking in his education. Surely professional institutions provides access to medical journals and the like. Failing that PubMed has some papers, but you'll need to pay for access or go through an institution - libraries can probably get individual copies.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    I truly have a buddy who couldnt breastfeed for extraordinarily own motives and he or she receives that form of awful treatment, too. human beings tell her she is egocentric, strangers call for that she clarify why she couldn't breastfeed (like it truly is ANY of their organisation!), she has even had someone tell her at paintings that she is a foul mom. i imagine the medical institution has pushed this plenty- they became "breastfeeding is nice" into "some thing else is EVIL and could damage your toddler!!!" it truly is ridiculous. no human being is going right into a preschool lecture room and factors out "oh, that youngster over there could were bottle-fed- its so obtrusive because they are developmentally not on time"- formula fed babes finally end up merely advantageous each day. there became an extremely good article, which i visit't locate now to link to, the position a reporter regarded up each and each of the medical study on breastfeeding or maybe as she stumbled on that there is a few earnings, it truly is not almost as huge or definitive because the breastfeeding advocates make it out to be. in case you'll locate it, you would want to print out copies at hand to those who attempt to make you sense undesirable about no longer bf. i'm making plans on attempting to breastfeed my toddler, yet I truly have the interest that issues dont continually move in accordance to plot with a newborn! (i became formula fed myself and that i dont imagine my mom became egocentric or that I had any issues from it.)

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    You could argue it's a violation of personal freedom.

    Of course that argument could also be torn apart fairly easily since infectious diseases don't respect the boundaries of individuals and your decision still affects others,

    Edit: "It can lie dormant on someone who is unaffected by it"

    No, a thousand times no. That cannot happen with any of the diseases we vaccinate against aside from chicken pox. Stop making claims about a topic you are horribly ignorant about.

    Edit: Flu cannot be dormant, chronic, ect. It's an acute disease. when it's done you've killed it all and you can't transmit it. It can't come back.

    HepB can be chronic. It is not dormant. They have entirely different meanings. Confusing the two really highlights how little you know about basic immunology and microbiology.

    Edit: Transmission through contaminated inanimate objects (a fomite) is not being a carrier. That word has a very specific meaning in epidemiology. By your definition I would be a carrier if I drew blood from an HIV positive person and stabbed someone else.

    Can anyone trust Lighty who warps the meaning of words after getting his *** handed to him?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    Dr Lightning - another one would be Typhoid - you've probably heard of Typhoid Mary?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    Individual liberty.

    Tink: The gunshot metaphor doesn't hold water when anyone can choose to get immunized against "gunshots". Further, the brazen violations of privacy and 4th Amendment rights which would necessarily occur to ensure compliance with such a mandate is all the more reason to come down on the side of freedom.

    Edit: How exactly do you think the Vaccine Gestapo is going to verify whether or not you've gotten your mandated shots for the year? Major 4th Amendment/HIPAA violations, that's how! (As for the gunshot metaphor, you're the one who brought it up!)

    Rhianna: I realize things are a bit diff'rent over there in Europe, but people are individuals first and foremost. The whole "good of society" spiel is nothing more than a slippery slope towards totalitarianism. If people don't want to get immunized, they are only putting themselves at risk. Those of us intelligent enough to know the facts will make the right choice and benefit from it, *without* the nanny-state telling us what's in our best interest.

    Source(s): Freedom means respecting other peoples' right to do things you disagree with.
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    The benefits of vaccines far outweigh their risks, and while I normally am all about 4th amendment rights, I do believe that prevention of catastrophic pandemics is within the scope of a limited government's duties.

    Source(s): (Government should only be there to protect us from large scale direct threats to our loss of life and liberty: Invasions, terrorists, murderers, thieves, pandemics, pollution)
    • Login to reply the answers
  • Tink
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Freedom means nothing if another person liberties imperil my own.

    For some reason it is illegal to go shooting people in the face - and a case of measles in some children is just as deadly.

    I fully support mandatory vaccination, and furthermore, I won't help someone write an essay to the contrary. I can't morally support something along those lines.

    Edit: My fourth amendment rights say that my person or property may not be searched - Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 1973 extended the due proection clause to a womans body for the right of abortion, says nothing about vaccinations. Furthermore, anyone can be shot, be torn to bits by a drunk driver, chewed up by a dog, etc, etc - as any ER will does prove. So your assertion makes NO sense. Additionally, my point was that other people DON'T have the right to violate my rights....and yet it happens all the time and no one cries 4th amendment!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • ~qx~
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    The old herd theory is a doctor's way of using your social conscience to coax you into vaccinating your children when the scare tactics of iron lungs do not work.

    It is your body, your child, your choice. Honestly, this is common sense.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Minx
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    thimerosal, mercury and aluminium are toxic ingredients when introduced into the human body ... neural blasphemy ....and don't belong in your veins sounds like a good enough reason to me.

    http://www.safeminds.org/mercury/biological-plausi...

    bless

    x

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.