Argument: Duty to protect the child

As article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states, “State parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to health services.” [1]

Each year millions of children worldwide die of preventable diseases before the age of five.

The argument presented here is that the state needs to protect the child and immunize him or her from preventable diseases as obviously the child does not have the capabilities at this stage to make informed decisions of their own.

The United Nations Right to Liberty and Security of the Person treaty, article 6.2 supports this view - State Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child. [2]

It is up to the State to decide if a child is to be immunized, as overall it will be the State who would benefit from having the vast majority of its citizens vaccinated, and it will be the State who will have to pay for any treatment needed to treat a preventable disease. Whilst a child’s parents have to a certain degree the right to decide what is best for their child’s future, poor decision making in this area could result in serious medical issues for the nation. In this extremely important area, the State must have authority over the rights of the parent.

[1] Convention on the Rights of the Child. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

[2] Right to Liberty and Security of Person. http://www.unfpa.org/rights/language/right8.htm

Candidate 1: "Compulsory vaccination violates the individuals’ right to bodily integrity

In most countries and declarations, one of the most basic human rights is the one to bodily integrity. It sets down that you have a right not to have your body or person interfered with. This means that the State may not do anything to harm your body without consent.

The NHS (National Health Service) explains: “You must give your consent (permission) before you receive any type of medical treatment, from a simple blood test to deciding to donate your organs after your death. If you refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected.”

This comes from the principle, that if a person has the capacity to consent to treatment and is making an informed decision (based on pros and cons of the treatment), the decision must be respected. The NHS explains further on: “If you have enough capacity and make a voluntary and informed decision to refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected. This applies even if your decision would result in your death, or the death of your unborn child.” [1]

In the case of vaccination this principle should be also applied. Even though we recognize that children are not able to fully comprehend the consequences a refusal would have, the parents should be there to decide on behalf of children over such decisions. The state has no right to stick a needle into a child just because they see fit doing so. It might be contested that in case of life endangering illnesses, the state should override the individuals’ rights. But rejection of vaccinations is not life endangering. So it is the judgment of the individual that is important and should not under any case be violated, just because someone might get an illness that in today’s modern world is easily curable.

[1] National Health Service (NHS), Do I have a right to refuse treatment ?, http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/899.aspx?categoryid=68&amp;subcategoryid=156 , accessed 29/05/2011"
Candidate 2: "Compulsory vaccination is an example of the tyranny of the majority even if it is made by a democratic government. And in a community that praises itself as democratic and respectful to wishes of others it is in no way acceptable that the rights of some get abused by the wishes of others.

John Stuart Mill has set philosophical basics: “the majority… the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power… In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. [1]

The state (or the majority) can only dictate to the individual is if that individual’s actions adversely affect the collective. Therefore the question is ‘what is the purpose of the vaccination?’ if it is to provide individuals with their own protection then autonomy of decision-making and individual liberty should predominate as guiding principles.

Under these circumstances there can be little justification of any coercion on the part of public health officials, in particular the use of mandatory vaccination legislation. If it is more based upon public harm i.e. the more chance of the virus infecting from one human to another then the less this defense can be used. [2]

[1] Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts &amp; Green, 1869; Bartleby.com, 1999. www.bartleby.com/130/ . 2nd October, 2009, Chapter 1, paragraph 9

[2] University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Medical ethics experts identify, address key issues in H1N1 pandemic, FirstScience News 23rd September 2009 http://www.firstscience.com/home/news/breaking-news-all-topics/medical-ethics-experts-identify-address-key-issues-in-h1n1-pandemic-page-3-1_71059.html , accessed 05/29/2011"
Candidate 3: "Vaccines themselves are expensive to develop in the lab and to mass produce for widespread compulsory vaccination programs. In addition to these upfront costs, organizing compulsory vaccination programs across an entire country can be very complicated and expensive. For instance, mechanisms must be set in place to ensure that the program is indeed compulsory, which means establishing a database of those that have and have not received the vaccine."
Candidate 4: "It is a parental right to decide about vaccinations for a child

Through birth, the child and the parent have a binding agreement that is supported within the society. This agreement involves a set of rights and duties aimed at, and justified by, the welfare of the child. Through that (according to texts from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): parents owe their children an “open future,” understood as one where they become adults capable of choosing their own conception of the good. As custodian, the parent is under a limited obligation to work and organize his or her life around the welfare and development of the child, for the child's sake. Concomitantly, the parent is endowed with a special kind of authority over the child. [1]

It therefore is the courtesy of a parent to decide what the best possible outcome is for a child. If the parent believes the child will be safer and better off in society without being given vaccine it is the parent’s right to decide not to give vaccination to the child.

Also the American Academy of Pediatrics reports, that refusing the immunization might not put children at risk, as long as they live in a well immunized community and can benefit from the “herd immunity”. They state: “Even in a community with high immunization rates, the risk assumed by an unimmunized child is likely to be greater than the risks associated with immunization. However, the risk remains low, and in most cases the parent who refuses immunizations on behalf of his or her child living in a well-immunized community does not place the child at substantial risk of serious harm.” [2]

[1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parenthood/ , accessed 05/28/2011

[2] Diekema Douglas, Responding to Parental Refusals of Immunization of Children, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/5/1428.full , accessed 05/28/2011"
Candidate 5: "Vaccines have severe side effects

Some of the used vaccines may have severe side effects, therefore we should let every individual asses the risk and make choices on his/her own. Besides introducing foreign proteins and even live viruses into the bloodstream, each vaccine has its own preservative, neutralizer and carrying agent, none of which are indigenous to the body. For instance, the triple antigen, DPT, which includes Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus vaccine, contains the following poisons: Formaldehyde, Mercury, and aluminum phosphate, and that's from the Physician's Desk Reference, 1980. The packet insert accompanying the vaccine, lists the following poisons: aluminum potassium sulfate, a mercury derivative called Thimersol and sodium phosphate. The packet insert for the polio vaccine lists monkey kidney cell culture, lactalbumin hydrozylate, antibiotics and calf serum. The packet insert for the MMR vaccine produced by Merck Sharp and Dhome which is for measles, mumps and rubella lists chick embryo and neomycin, which is a mixture of antibiotics. [1]

Evidence also suggests that immunizations damage the immune system itself. By focusing exclusively on increased antibody production, which is only one aspect of the immune process, immunizations isolate dysfunction and allow it to substitute for the entire immune response, because vaccines trick the body so that it will no longer initiate a generalized response. They accomplished what the entire immune system seems to have been evolved to prevent. That is, they place the virus directly into the blood and give it access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it.

The long-term persistence of viruses and other foreign proteins within the cells of the immune system has been implicated in a number of chronic and degenerative diseases. In 1976 Dr. Robert Simpson of Rutgers university addressed science writers at a seminar of the American Cancer Society, and pointed out the following. "Immunization programs against flu, measles, mumps, polio and so forth may actually be seeding humans with RNA to form latent pro viruses in cells throughout the body. These latent pro viruses could be molecules in search of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Parkinson's disease, and perhaps cancer." [2]

Vaccines may cause a child who is genetically predisposed to have autism. If the trend of increased Thimerosal in vaccinations correlates so well with the trend of increased autistic diagnoses, there is a link. Thimerosal in vaccinations (which means 'contains mercury') causes autism. Too many times has a child been completely healthy, and then a vaccine containing Thimerosal is injected into the child. The child becomes ill, stops responding visually and verbally, and is then diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

[1] Roger R. Gervais. Understanding the Vaccine Controversy. Natural MAgainse May/June 1996. http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/naturalparenting/vaccines.htm

[2] Alex Loglia, Global healing center, http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/vaccinations-the-hour-of-the-time.html , accessed 28/05/2011"
Candidate 6: "A great deal of health care and prevention of diseases is information and an informed decision. The United Kingdom does not have a system of compulsory health care, but disease outbreaks are still prevented due to the voluntary uptake of immunizations. The pediatrician Miriam Fine-Goulden explains: “The risk of contracting these infections is only so low at present because the voluntary uptake of immunizations has been high enough (in most cases) to reduce the chance of contact with those organisms through the process of herd immunity.” [1]

Also it can be argued that measles, mumps and rubella (one of the diseases vaccine against) are far from harmful. They are relatively minor illnesses [2] . Measles causes a rash and high fever. Mumps causes swollen glands, headache and fever. Rubella is usually mild and can go unnoticed.

Just because medical advance has been made in vaccinations it does not mean that we have to be immunized against every little disease known to man. Bearing in mind the cost of such jabs on the heavily burdened NHS, surely it would be better to not make the MMR jab compulsory. This way we keep parents happy and the NHS budget can be stretched further.

Researches also show that alternative approaches towards diseases such as better nutrition, homeopathy, etc. give very positive results. Healthier populations would not need vaccines to fight a disease. High profits that are now reserved only for the pharmaceutical industry would be spread to other areas of the economy, such as agriculture and the service sector, and more people would gain.

[1] Miriam Fine-Goulden: Should childhood vaccinations be compulsory in the UK ?, University College London, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/opticon1826/archive/issue8/articles/Article_Biomed_Sc_-_Fine-Goulden__Vaccination_Publish.pdf , accessed 05/29/2011

[2] BBC News, Should the MMR vaccine be compulsory, 03/02/2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2088426.stm , accessed 05/29/2011"

Compulsory vaccination is an example of the tyranny of the majority even if it is made by a democratic government. And in a community that praises itself as democratic and respectful to wishes of others it is in no way acceptable that the rights of some get abused by the wishes of others.

John Stuart Mill has set philosophical basics: “the majority… the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power… In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. [1]

The state (or the majority) can only dictate to the individual is if that individual’s actions adversely affect the collective. Therefore the question is ‘what is the purpose of the vaccination?’ if it is to provide individuals with their own protection then autonomy of decision-making and individual liberty should predominate as guiding principles.

Under these circumstances there can be little justification of any coercion on the part of public health officials, in particular the use of mandatory vaccination legislation. If it is more based upon public harm i.e. the more chance of the virus infecting from one human to another then the less this defense can be used. [2]

[1] Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts &amp; Green, 1869; Bartleby.com, 1999. www.bartleby.com/130/ . 2nd October, 2009, Chapter 1, paragraph 9

[2] University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Medical ethics experts identify, address key issues in H1N1 pandemic, FirstScience News 23rd September 2009 http://www.firstscience.com/home/news/breaking-news-all-topics/medical-ethics-experts-identify-address-key-issues-in-h1n1-pandemic-page-3-1_71059.html , accessed 05/29/2011
