Mothers Lose Vaccination Fight --- MOTHERS LOSE JAB APPEAL

SkyNews ^ | 07/30/03 | Staff Writer

[bedolido]

Two mothers trying to stop their daughters being compulsorily vaccinated - including the controversial MMR jab - have lost their battle at the Court of Appeal.

The fathers of the girls, who are not married to the mothers, launched the legal action after the mothers refused to allow the children to have the jabs.

The women took the case to the Court of Appeal after Mr Justice Sumner ruled last month that the girls, aged five and 10, should have the medical treatment.

Now three appeal judges have again ruled against the mothers, one of whom is considering taking the case to the House of Lords.

The mothers cannot be named to protect the identities of the children.

In a hearing at the appeal court last week, Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel, representing the mothers, told the court that Mr Justice Sumner had not taken sufficient notice of the mothers' wishes and the effect the ruling would have on the families.

The mothers, the sole carers of their daughters, argued that immunisation should be voluntary and it was not right to impose it against the wishes of a caring parent and it would cause them great distress.

The elder girl had asked not to be given the MMR jab but had asked for meningitis protection.

Some parents fear the MMR vaccine could be linked to autism, even though doctors and most experts say there is no evidence of a link.

Mr Justice Sumner decided both children should receive the jab because the benefits outweighed the risks.

Lord Justice Thorpe said the High Court judge`s approach had been "above criticism".

He said: "What is plain is that ultimately these applications were decided by applying the paramount consideration of the welfare of the two children concerned."

Last Updated: 10:40 UK, Wednesday July 30, 2003

[discostu]

So which do we have a stronger right toward:
Not living in a plague zone
Being a plague carrier

You can't have it both ways.

[Cate]

I think the mothers who protest this injection have not done their research on the diseases they are trying to prevent. I am 45 yrs old, had mumps, measles and rubella when I was a kid. They were all horrible. I missed school (which I loved), and with the rubella, they thought I was going to die. If there is a way to prevent these horrible illnesses, why not take the injection? Believe me, my kids were given every injection available.

[Princeton]

"As for MMR phobia, the claims linking it to autism are total bullsh**. There is absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of a link between MMR and autism."

So say the Merck "sponsored" studies.

[TomB]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we let people choose whether or not to be vaccinated and an epidemic broke out, wouldn't only those who chose "wrong" become ill?

Nope. Vaccines are not 100% effective, so it is important to vaccinate as many people as possible to incur the benefits of "herd immunity".

[Chemist_Geek]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we let people choose whether or not to be vaccinated and an epidemic broke out, wouldn't only those who chose "wrong" become ill?

No, vaccination is not a guarantee of immunity, it just makes it more difficult for the bug. Furthermore, a vaccinated population makes it much more difficult for an epidemic to start in the first place.

Nothing like closing the barn door after the horses are stolen, right?

If you start forced medical treatment and mask it under "general welfare" I'd bet some FReepers would argue that we should give everyone prozac so we could all get along better.

On my more irritated days, I've thought of renting a spray plane and loading its tanks with Prozac or Haldol or something...

The Chinese force abortions for general welfare.

And your point is? Just because they do something citing some reason, doesn't mean that we shouldn't do something different for the same reason. However, I should point out that pregnancy is not a communicable disease - although it can leave the woman and baby crippled or dead.

[discostu]

Your base assumption is false. Vaccines don't grant a 100% proof barrier against a disease. They increase your immune system's chance of over coming a disease without symptoms. Think of it like fire proofing, eventually at high enough heat anything will burn, nothing can ever provide total proof against fire, but by adding fire proofing you increase the level of heat necessary.

So in your example you risk serious long term problems to get mumps the "natural" way, then you bring it into your work environment, then somebody who's had the vaccines but doesn't have a strong immune system to start with gets it from you. Now there's two contagious people there increasing the pressure on the immune systems of your coworkers, and of course both your families are potential cases, and his children have a good chance of inherriting his weak immune system and they can bring it into the school... that's how plague's are born.

Herd immunity rellies on herd compliance. How effective vaccines are revolves around how widely they're used. Just like traffic lights, their effectiveness at stopping traffic accidents is directly proportional to how many people do what the light tells them to.

[Clara Lou]

I have one question: How is today's smallpox vaccination different from the smallpox vaccination I received as a child?

[Clara Lou]

I have one question: How is today's smallpox vaccination different from the smallpox vaccination I received as a child?

[Chemist_Geek]

Thanks for trying, though.

The 10th Amendment does not protect reckless endangerment.

[Chemist_Geek]

Sorry, Ninth Amendment. Either way, there is no right to recklessly endanger others' health or life.

[AAABEST]

Well you both make good points. I was already convinced that most vaccines are a good idea so I didn't need to be convinced.

That said, if a certain vaccination is a good thing and is needed, you should have no trouble convincing a vast majority of people to have it done. Employers can require employees, schools can require students, or those employees and students could go elsewhere.

Are you both saying you're for the government forcing people to have drugs that they deem "good" injected into unwilling people? I won't bother trying to explain the many pitfalls to that scenario. If they're not glaringly apparant to you already I'd just be wasting my time.

A stranger would put a drug filled needle in my arm against my will only over my dead body, or his.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

I do homeschool, not just to aviod vacations my children don't need. My son aged five has all vacanations except for the age five round. I opt out of anymore for him. Second son age one has gotten only a couple of the shots. No hep , chickenpox , polio or MMR. I just went through this with my doc. I brought my pages of research into his office and talked to him in great detail. He agreed with me that my children , who have allergies ,and with my family medical history , could have trouble with vacations.

I thought about it and did a lot of research , and I am happy with the outcome. I know my children are not putting anyone in harm's way by avoiding the shots. I know I am protecting their health by not getting the shots.

Parents must make informed decessions based upon individual medical and family history. Even the honest docters will tell you that there are some children who should not get the shots. Yes, the vacination program is good for the overall health of country, but if you know your risks of death or illness are higher getting the shots , it is best to avoid them in part or whole. In order to undersatnd the medical issues people should gather a lot of research from reputable sources.

[jlogajan]

I think this is another one of those sticky-wicket conflicts between individual liberty and societal good.

Not necessarily. You can also look at it as individual versus individual. After all, it is individuals who get sick, whereas "society" is just an abstract idea.

Things here are on a continuum rather than black and white. The more dangerous the vaccine itself is to the individual taking it, the grayer the case. Similarly the less effective the vaccine the grayer the case.

So even from an individualist viewpoint (i.e. Libertarian), individuals can expect to be spared unreasonable threats to their health and safety. From vaccines, or from sick people.

The ideological fight here will always be in the details, rather than in absolutes.

[ellery]

Yeah, it's amazing how congress can twist words that are perfectly clear, isn't it? :-)

[Chemist_Geek]

your risks of death or illness are higher getting the shots

On the average they aren't; that's the point.

There already exist exemption procedures. But, at what point do we let other people hold our and our childrens' health hostage?

I know my children are not putting anyone in harm's way by avoiding the shots.

Your children never interact with anyone else? Wow, and I thought the bubble boy had it bad.

[ellery]

The Constitution does not list rights -- it limits government power. Anything not mentioned there is the province of the states, or the people.

[ellery]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we let people choose whether or not to be vaccinated and an epidemic broke out, wouldn't only those who chose "wrong" become ill?

This is a very good point. I do believe this "for the good of society" business is the mother of all slippery slopes. I guess in some cases, e.g., drunk driving, my right to not be killed by a drunk driver trumps the driver's right to OUI. I'm trying to think of other instances where the societal good seems obviously to trump individual liberty...any ideas?

[ellery]

Oops, I read all the posts about vaccinations not providing 100% immunity. I stand corrected.

[Iwo Jima]

I often read that minority parents (black and Hispanic) commonly do not vaccinate their children until they start school at about age 6. So my question is, comparing that group of children to the control group of vaccinated children, do the two groups of kids have any statistical1y different incidence of 1) suffering the disease being vaccinated against (both before and after the first group gets vaccinated) or 2) adverse reactions or problems alleged to have been caused by the vaccine.

If the unvaccinated group has no significantly greater incidence of the disease or if that group has a significantly lesser incidence of problems, then that would support allowing parents to have greater control over whether or when to get their child vaccinated.

Our son developed seizures after a vaccination as a baby. He had febrile seizures for years. We delayed getting him vaccinated for hepatitis as long as possible. When we finally had to get him vaccinated at age 12, we felt that he was old enough that the vaccine would be less likely to harm him. And he did fine.

I am convinced that relatively recent practice of giving so many children so many vaccinations at such an early age is behind some of the reactions which have been associated with vaccinations. Parents are usually able to make the best choices for their own children.

[ellery]

You're right -- it is actually a matter of individual versus individual. So do you think in this case such things can be decided by state legislatures? Or do you think since viruses don't respect state lines, this needs to be handled by the feds?