slideshow widget

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Vaccinations: Should they be mandatory?

Okay folks, I think some people misunderstood what my intentions were when I wrote a post a couple days ago titled, "Parents should have choice NOT to vaccinate."

I did not write that I am against vaccinations. The point of my post was that I don't think the gov can force anything on anyone.

Personally, I think there are certain immunizations that are essential that parents should allow doctors to give to their children. These immunizations are important because they prevent their children from getting deadly and highly contagious diseases like Measles, Mumps, Pertussis (Whooping Cough), Rubella (German Measles), tetanus (lockjaw) and poliomyelitis.

All of those I think all children SHOULD get. All of my children have been given, or will get if recommended, all of these vaccinations.

However, some parents firmly believe that materials used in the vaccinations (such as Mercury) are more harmful to children than what the vaccinations are intended to prevent. Or they do not want the vaccinations for personal or religious reasons. I have seen all sorts of reasons.

I just want my readers to know that I am not one of these people. I do not necessarily believe these vaccinations are harmful. However, some people do, and their wishes should be respected by the government.

Why do I say this? Because the government has been wrong before and could be wrong again.

I provided some examples in my last post, and I will provide the same and more in this one.

1. Gardisil: This is a vaccination that some states are considering making mandatory for all 12 year old girls to get because it prevents cervical cancer caused by HPV (a sexually transmitted disease). To give this to all girls at such a young age is ASSUMING they are going to have unprotected sex, perhaps at a young age. Also, it is assuming that the vaccination is safe. Is it?

Or, perhaps, are the legislatures that want to make this vaccination mandatory in bed with lobbyists from the makers of the vaccination. If this vaccination is mandatory, those company's are set to make millions of dollars.

Thus, before I ever allow my child to get this vaccination, I would like to know if politicians truly believe it is a necessary vaccination, or if they want to make it MANDATORY for other reasons

If there was an immenant threat my child was going to get and die from this disease, then it would be different. But there is no immediate threat.

You see, as an American, I deserve the right to doubt my government

Now, if this vaccination is proven safe and effective, then perhaps down the road doubters like me might reconsider. Perhaps if my daughter gets cervical cancer from HPV I might live to regret my decision.

Still, It is my decision to make and not some person sitting in a leather chair in a state capitol who has political aspirations.

Do you see my point?

2. Chickenpox: I already wrote about this in my previous post, so I'll only touch lightly here. Chickenpox is hardly as deadly as some of the diseases mentioned above. Is the chicken pox vaccination another attempt of the lobbyist to make money for their respective companies?

I'm not saying it is. I will also make it known here that both my children have gotten this vaccination. However, before my daughter got it we learned that scientists aren't even sure how long the vaccination will last.

So, are we setting our children up to getting adult-onset chickenpox, which can be far deadlier than the child version? I don't know. Like I said, I'm a doubter here. I have a right to be.

3. Hepatitis B: Sure nobody wants to get this disease, but when will a child be exposed to it?

That in mind, I did not allow my child to get this vaccination. Since there is always a risk of putting certain chemicals in babies, I think this vaccination can be given when my child is older, and not a newborn.

Again, it is my right as a parent to make this decision.

Our doctor cringed. The nurse cringed as though she believed everything carted at her by the CDC, which is undoubtedly another government agency.

We assured our doctor that we have nothing against the vaccination and will get it to our child in due time, or she can decide to get it as an adult as we both did, but she does not need the added risk at such a young age.

Heck, let doctors use other kids as guennie pigs.

4. Hepatitis A: Hardly as potent an illness as Hep B, so our doctor didn't make an issue of this. Do we give this to little kids? You decide, not Uncle Sam or Uncle Michigan or Aunt Mississippi.

5. Influenza: I get this vaccination every year. My hospital does not force this on me, but I still get it becasue I am at high risk for getting complications because of my asthma. Still, I don't think the government should force kids to get this.

It is the influenza shot that the state of New Jersey is forcing parents to give to their children before they attend preschool. If they do not get it they will be charged as criminals.

Is this right? Should any government have this power over parents?

I pitty parents who refuse to get their children immunized because of religious or personal fears. I especially pitty them when their children get preventable diseases. Yet, still, it is their decision to make.

And, while they have a right to make those decisions, they also have the right to accept the consequences of their decisions if the worse case scenerio happens.

I believe most people are smart and will make the right decision for their children. I believe that the government should provide the oportunity for parents to make that right decision. Yet it is not Uncle Sam's role to force upon people that of which they do not want.

Education is always the key. My wife and I have read loads on this stuff. I also believe that most people who never question doctors are more likely to be uneducated about their vaccinations than those who refuse to allow their children to get them.

However, one must also consider the source of information. Do we listen to the CDC, lobbyists, the company making the vaccinations, scientists in a lab, politicians, church officials, or other so called controversial subjects? The word controversial is likewise open to personal opinion.

Since nothing is guaranteed in this life, the choice of where one receives his information from is up to the individual. We may not agree with where they obtained their information, but, still, people are smart enough to decide for themselves.

Is it better that we allow our kids to be exposed to these diseases so we can strenghten their immune systems. I don't think so, but some poeple do.

However, we must remember that one of the reasons that we are all alive today is because our ancestors WERE exposed to most of these diseases and were strong enough to survive. They developed defenses.

Thus, it is fair for some to question whether we are diminishing our own defenses and setting ourselves up for some sort of epidemic down the road by eliminating these diseases today.

I do not think so. I firmly believe the right thing to do is get your basic immunizations. Still, your neigbor down the street should have the right to say, "No. I don't think so."

And that, my friends, is the clarification of the day.

1 comment:

Vaccinations said...


This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Vaccinations, I hope you like. The address is Travel Vaccinations, A hug.