aliceBB Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Australia seems set to implement such a policy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-32274107 Difficult one! What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeh Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 If you dont let the state inject your child with chemicals then the state wont help you during hard times? That sounds creepy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Wholly against it. People have all sorts of reasons not to have their child get their jabs, from religious to a distrust of the effects to a fear of the potential ill effects. Personally I think immunisation is beneficial, but forcing it on people is beyond acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick1 Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Wholly against it. People have all sorts of reasons not to have their child get their jabs, from religious to a distrust of the effects to a fear of the potential ill effects. Personally I think immunisation is beneficial, but forcing it on people is beyond acceptable. Fully agree tzijlstra! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 You have to do something as a government, because not vaccinating doesn't just put your own child at risk, it also puts children that can't be done for medical reasons at risk, along with those small number of cases where the vaccine isn't effective. And all those babies that haven't reached the required age for vaccination, babies are the most funeral group, so the more unvaccinated children there are in their community the greater the risk of babies contracting a disease that is largely preventable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liza D Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 It will not be long before those on benefits are directed into the "Delousing showers" if we let Cameron and his cronies continue in this "let's persecute the poor" regime. Why will it only be those on benefits who are punished for this right of free will? Why are they soooo eager for the poor to be vaccinated all of a sudden? Wouldn't trust this gov as far as I could throw them. Moneyed scum the lot of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 It will not be long before those on benefits are directed into the "Delousing showers" if we let Cameron and his cronies continue in this "let's persecute the poor" regime. Why will it only be those on benefits who are punished for this right of free will? Why are they soooo eager for the poor to be vaccinated all of a sudden? Wouldn't trust this gov as far as I could throw them. Moneyed scum the lot of them. This proposal hasn't got anything to do with our government! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeh Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 It will not be long before those on benefits are directed into the "Delousing showers" if we let Cameron and his cronies continue in this "let's persecute the poor" regime. Why will it only be those on benefits who are punished for this right of free will? Why are they soooo eager for the poor to be vaccinated all of a sudden? Wouldn't trust this gov as far as I could throw them. Moneyed scum the lot of them. Did you even read the link? ---------- Post added 12-04-2015 at 10:03 ---------- This proposal hasn't got anything to do with our government! Beat me to it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 This proposal hasn't got anything to do with our government! Correct. It is a lousy policy too. What we should do is to prevent unvaccinated children from using state facilities, such as schools. If people want to opt out of an important public health program, that is up to them. They shouldn't have the right to endanger others by their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansheff Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Correct. It is a lousy policy too. What we should do is to prevent unvaccinated children from using state facilities, such as schools. If people want to opt out of an important public health program, that is up to them. They shouldn't have the right to endanger others by their actions. Then you are penalising those children, they have not chosen not to be vaccinated their parents made the choice for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now