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: "The argument of “bad vaccines” is a very popular one. However, scientifically seen this arguments is flawed in many aspects.

First of all many of the examples used in arguments suggesting vaccination is dangerous and therefore should not be used, is very old. Many refer to examples from the 60s or 70s, which in medicine is highly flawed as science every few years significantly advances, improves the level of knowledge and reduces possible side effects. And even though many believe in the damages caused by vaccines retrospective studies disprove this point:

1. Autism

Scientists at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health's Center for Infection and Immunity and researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Trinity College Dublin, evaluated bowel tissues from 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls) by real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR for the presence of measles virus RNA. Samples were analyzed in three laboratories blinded to diagnosis, including one wherein the original findings suggesting a link between measles virus and autism had been reported. [1]

"Our results are inconsistent with a causal role for MMR vaccine as a trigger or exacerbate of either GI difficulties or autism," states Mady Hornig, associate professor of Epidemiology and director of translational research in the Center for Infection and Immunity in the Mailman School, and co-corresponding author of the study. "The work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that autism with GI complaints is related to MMR vaccine exposure. We found no relationship between the timing of MMR vaccine and the onset of either GI complaints or autism. [2]

Many parents came to believe that vaccines caused their children's autism because the symptoms of autism appeared after the child received a vaccination. On a psychological level, that assumption and connection makes sense; but on a logical level, it is a clear and common fallacy with a fancy Latin name: post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of it"). They just need someone to blame for the disease of their child. [3]

2. Allergies and vaccines

A recent (2011) study of a German Health Institute concludes that in comparing the occurrence of infections and allergies in vaccinated and unvaccinated children and adolescents. These include bronchitis, eczema, colds, and gastrointestinal infection. The only difference they found is that unvaccinated children and adolescents differ from their vaccinated peers merely in terms of the frequency of vaccine preventable diseases. These include pertussis, mumps, or measles. As expected, the risk of contracting these diseases is substantially lower in vaccinated children and adolescents. [4]

[1] Science Daily, No connection between Measels, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) Vaccine and Autism, Study suggests 09/05/2008 http ://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145218.htm

[2] Ibid.

[3] Benjamin Radford, Autism and sciences: Why bad Logic Trumps Science, 09/05/2008 http://www.livescience.com/2845-autism-vaccines-bad-logic-trumps-science.html

[4] Deutsches Aerzteblatt International (2011, March 7). Vaccinated children not at higher risk of infections or allergic diseases, study suggests. ScienceDaily. http://www.sciencedaily.com­/releases/2011/03/110304091458.htm , accessed May 28, 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: "The problem with this is that those refusing vaccines on account of this effectively violate the same right for other people if, and when, there is an outbreak of the disease against which the vaccine is protecting."
Candidate 5: "An adult vaccine refusal and a parental vaccine refusal are not the same. Parents do not have absolute right to put their child at a risk even if they themselves are willing to accept such a risk for him or herself.

Minors have a right to be protected against infectious diseases and society has the responsibility to ensure welfare of children who may be harmed by their parents’ decisions.

Counseling should form an integral part of any such legislation, as often it is not conviction but laziness of the parents in taking their child to the clinic for immunization or the parents’ inability to make an informed decision. [1]

Also the state has already protected children in cases, when their functioning later as an adult could be compromised due to parental actions. For instance: in order to promote culturally prescribed norms, parents may seek to remove their child from school, or have their daughter undergo clitoridectomy; yet the state may claim that such a decision violates the parents' trustee relationship on grounds that the state has a compelling interest in securing the full citizenship capacities and rights of each of its citizens. As trustee, the parent has a limited right to exclusivity in determining the child's life over the course of childhood, but this determination is to be aimed at shaping the child into (for instance) a productive citizen and community member. [2]

The LSU Law center also explains: “The more difficult problem is religious or cultural groups that oppose immunizations. These groups tend to cluster, reducing the effective immunization level in their neighborhoods, schools, and churches. In addition to endangering their own children, such groups pose a substantial risk to the larger community. By providing a reservoir of infection, a cluster of unimmunized persons can defeat the general herd immunity of a community. As these infected persons mix with members of the larger community, they will expose those who are susceptible to contagion.” [3]

As seen not to vaccine children can represent a danger for their future, there should be no ultimate power of parents to prevent vaccine jabs.

[1] Lahariya C, Mandatory vaccination: is it the future reality ?, Singapore medical journal (editorial) 2008, http://smj.sma.org.sg/4909/4909e1.pdf , accessed 05/25/2011

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

[3] Louisiana State University (LSU), Compulsory Immunization, http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/books/lbb/x790.htm , accessed 05/29/2011"
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
