Vaccine Whackos: Parents on the Run

[matty.the.damned]

From todays Snide and Moaning Herald:

A SYDNEY couple was on the run with their two-day-old baby last night after the Department of Community Services took out a Supreme Court order to have the boy vaccinated against hepatitis B.

. . . .

(The father) admitted he had also refused to have his daughter vaccinated for hepatitis B after her birth in 2005 and has not had her screened for the illness since. His father, who is a member of the Australian Vaccination Network, which lobbies against compulsory vaccinations for children, said humans were incapable of breaking down aluminium and the vaccinations presented "a lot of dangers and lot of big questions marks".

(linakge)


. . . and of course the risks of HBV infection are entirely inconsequential when compared with the "big question marks" that concern the idiot grandfather.

MtD
(Who needs his HBV vaccination redone, come to think of it)

 

[Arthur Denton]

Same happened in Brazil, only years ago. Nowadays people won't run from vaccines, they'll actually have more than they need if there's an epidemics.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It might be worth pointing out that the mother is (presumably) a carrier of Hepatitis B and so the child is at high risk of contracting the disease from her.

 

[matty.the.damned]

It might be worth pointing out that the mother is (presumably) a carrier of Hepatitis B and so the child is at high risk of contracting the disease from her.

The mother does indeed have HBV infection which is why this has created a fuss. It's all in the linked article.

MtD

 

[Pipirr]

So the risk is less of an intangible, herd-immunity kind of thing, and more of a direct, very real, your mother might kill you if you aren't vaccinated situation.

And still he won't vaccinate.

 

[Ysidro]

So the risk is less of an intangible, herd-immunity kind of thing, and more of a direct, very real, your mother might kill you if you aren't vaccinated situation.

And still he won't vaccinate.

But it's DANGEROUS!

Maybe. Well, it could be. Somewhere. Somehow. Sometime. Probably not, but still.... it COULD BE!!!!!!!

 

[Capsid]

Catching HBV as an infant is more likely to develop into a chronic infection which is a death sentence.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

"on the run" hey. That brings up images of them camped out by a river looking out for the posse. Yeah, the vaccinators are gonna get them! Poor parents gotta be on the run. Stupid media connotations.

Aluminum is present in practically all of the foods you eat, but that matters not to the vaccine hysteria brigade. Things you don't break down are things you eliminate. Hallooo.

Aluminum is a naturally occuring element, however, anything in vaccines to the hysteria brigade is counted as unnatural. Heck, don't use deoderant or antiperspirant either, don't eat, and don't live, and you will still not avoid aluminum.

Oh well. So the dumb people who don't vaccinate their kids might cause the kids harm. Give them a Darwin award for their kid if it dies or is sterilized by a preventable disease before they have any kids. *shrug* Why bother with the courts, that just gives them more ammo, and the media a chance to give the hysteria brigage a voice yet again. I"m just glad the vaccines are readily available still for those that want them. If there becomes a shortage, then I'll have a reason to whine.

 

[matty.the.damned]

Oh well. So the dumb people who don't vaccinate their kids might cause the kids harm. Give them a Darwin award for their kid if it dies or is sterilized by a preventable disease before they have any kids. *shrug* Why bother with the courts, that just gives them more ammo, and the media a chance to give the hysteria brigage a voice yet again. I"m just glad the vaccines are readily available still for those that want them. If there becomes a shortage, then I'll have a reason to whine.

Some overly sentimental types formed the view that a 3 day old baby had a right to live without HBV infection irrespective of the lunatic views of his parents.

It's ridiculous, I know. Protecting babies who can't make decisions for themselves. What is the world coming to?

MtD

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Some overly sentimental types formed the view that a 3 day old baby had a right to live without HBV infection irrespective of the lunatic views of his parents.

It's ridiculous, I know. Protecting babies who can't make decisions for themselves. What is the world coming to?

MtD

It's their kid. They aren't starving it, or beating it. I don't agree with it, and would argue it until blue in the face. Getting the law involved is stupid though. Like I said, it just gives people like them a voice and a platform to play victim. Ignore their stupid choices, and let them suffer the consequences. Don't splay it all over the news.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I would think that the law is trying to protect a future citizen of society, which the parents are neglecting. Sure, they're feeding it and keeping it warm, but there are more kinds of neglect than just food and shelter.

 

[jdp]

It's their kid. They aren't starving it, or beating it. I don't agree with it, and would argue it until blue in the face. Getting the law involved is stupid though. Like I said, it just gives people like them a voice and a platform to play victim. Ignore their stupid choices, and let them suffer the consequences. Don't splay it all over the news.

In general, I would also prefer the law not to get involved. But, at what point does this transcend to child endangerment? I mean from time to time you hear about Christian Scientists refusing life saving medical treatment for their children, preferring to pray for their recovery, and if and when the state or county finds out they step right in. Perhaps this situation is a bit different as there is no immediate need but where would that line be?

 

[drkitten]

Ignore their stupid choices, and let them suffer the consequences. Don't splay it all over the news.

But they're not the ones that will suffer.

Contrary to popular belief, children -- even infants -- are not just extensions of their parents. Babies are not accessories.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

But they're not the ones that will suffer.

Contrary to popular belief, children -- even infants -- are not just extensions of their parents. Babies are not accessories.

Substituted judgment.

In Loss Leader's words: What the parents' want is, by definition, what their child wants.

 

[Mark Felt]

Substituted judgment.

In Loss Leader's words: What the parents' want is, by definition, what their child wants.

Shall we use that logic to justify child abuse?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Shall we use that logic to justify child abuse?

No. Define 'child abuse'. Does it include refusing non-immediately required medical care?

(BTW, I'm all for this child being vaccinated. She is at very high risk of a serious disease.)

 

[elipse]

They aren't just refusing "non-immediately required" medical care. It's not like they'll vaccinate "if-and-when such and such" happens. They're never going to vaccinate.

What if a child had early warning signs of a serious disease? They don't have the disease yet. Medical care is not "immediately required". Should the parents be allowed to wait until the child actually has the disease, if acting sooner could have prevented it? "She only has something that might possibly turn into cancer/diabetes/gum disease! We shouldn't have to do anything about it!"

Or a staph infection. You could argue that a staph infection might not need "immediate" attention. Hell, I got away with waiting to treat one for about two months because I couldn't afford the medication, (and I was just out of high school and stupid). My doctor told me off when she found out, lemme tell you... would that be defensible if it was my child instead of myself?

As you might have figured out, I am firmly on the side of government stepping in when a child's health is at stake. All it should take is a call from the doctor, assuming the child ever saw one. I am also of the opinion that criminal charges should be leveled when medical negligence leads to the death of a child- in every case. Not because I believe that we should make the lives of grieving parents any worse, but because if it is very clear that there will be no loopholes in the law, churches (or anti-vax groups) would have no wriggle room. The Christian Science church changed its rules recently (within the last 10-15 years) to eliminate the parts about not seeing a doctor- for exactly this reason. They didn't want to be held responsible for charges brought against parents who were following their rules. Not seeing a doctor is no longer mentioned at all in their tenants, nor is it required to join the Mother Church. (It was never a requirement for joining a branch church.)
I am also in favour of reducing the loopholes that allow for not vaccinating a child before it enters public school. The only acceptable reason should be a medical reason why the child cannot be vaccinated.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

As you might have figured out, I am firmly on the side of government stepping in when a child's health is at stake. All it should take is a call from the doctor, assuming the child ever saw one.

<snip>

A couple of questions:

What health risks should the government step in on? For example, many children are going to suffer from health problems related to being obese.

What will effect will doctors snitching on a child's parents have on public trust in medical professionals?

 

[drkitten]

Substituted judgment.

In Loss Leader's words: What the parents' want is, by definition, what their child wants.

I can't tell if you're seriously proposing that.

But it's obviously not true, as anyone who has had to listen to "I hate you, Mommy!" can aver. And the court recognizes the fact that children are independent of their parents' wants, which is why they will appoint guardians to watch over children in extreme cases where the parents' wants are putting the child at risk.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I just see so many people harping about the "health freedom" rights nowadays, that I want them to suffer the consequences of their stupidity anymore. And trust me, once hooked by alt medder claims, most parents would feel better watching their kids die than subject them to the monsters that alt med has made MDs out to be. They feel their kid will suffer more from medical attention, and therefore prefer "nature" to take its course. They will see their kids in the heavens after they keel off from liver cancer, so they figure that's better than giving their kids to "allopathy" and watch them suffer from "aluminum poisoning".

Until people suffer the consequences of making "allopathy" out to be evil, then parents will feel safer with the consequences of preventable diseases. It's the alt medders and clergy that should be sued for their claims that cause the parents to run. If they weren't freaking parents out, then the parents wouldn't be running.