Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Wanting to tighten vaccine exemption is a polite way of saying you are in favour of mandatory vaccines.
New Posts  All Forums:
 

Wanting to tighten vaccine exemption is a polite way of saying you are in favour of mandatory...

post #1 of 35
9/18/12 at 11:42am
Thread Starter 

Wanting to tighten vaccine exemption is a polite way of saying you are in favour of mandatory vaccines.  

 

True or false?

Sponsored Links

You may also like:

Sitting or Squatting: What's Really Best in the Bathroom?
What NOT to Say to Newly Pregnant Mom
10 Things You Don't Need For a New Baby
post #2 of 35
9/18/12 at 11:48am

biglaugh.gif Kathy is this a trick question?

post #3 of 35
9/18/12 at 12:01pm

I thought discussion of mandatory vaccinations was against the rules of this board....

post #4 of 35
9/18/12 at 12:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

biglaugh.gif Kathy is this a trick question?

Well…there has been some circling of the wagons around this issue.  Let's just say it as it is. smile.gif

post #5 of 35
9/18/12 at 12:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I thought discussion of mandatory vaccinations was against the rules of this board....

banghead.gif

 

Promoting/suggesting them would be against the guidelines, not simply discussing them; at least that's what I would imagine.  

post #6 of 35
9/18/12 at 12:34pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I thought discussion of mandatory vaccinations was against the rules of this board....

If being in favour of tightening of exemptions= being in favour of mandatory vaccines, then yes, it is a discussion on mandatory vaccines.

 

If being in favour of tightening vaccines exemptions does not equal being in favour of mandatory vaccines, then it is not a discussion on mandatory vaccines.


Edited by kathymuggle - 9/20/12 at 11:11am
post #7 of 35
9/18/12 at 12:35pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmandaT View Post

banghead.gif

 

Promoting/suggesting them would be against the guidelines, not simply discussing them; at least that's what I would imagine.  

Agreed.

 

There is a lot of discussion in the media around tightening of exemptions.  It is an issue of great interest of many of us.

post #8 of 35
9/18/12 at 12:38pm

But anyway, true. 

 

Exemptions, even philosophical ones, bug me. If its truly an informed consent procedure, why do I need anyone's permission to not undergo it? I understand needing to inform the school in case of an outbreak but I don't see why it should be separate from the rest of the child's medical records. I suppose its just the connotation of exemption. 

post #9 of 35
9/18/12 at 3:03pm

I'm in favor of getting rid of mandatory vaccines in all states, period. So no more exemptions will be necessary. Like back home where the schools couldn't care less if a student is vaccinated or not.

post #10 of 35
9/18/12 at 7:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmandaT View Post

But anyway, true. 

 

Exemptions, even philosophical ones, bug me. If its truly an informed consent procedure, why do I need anyone's permission to not undergo it? I understand needing to inform the school in case of an outbreak but I don't see why it should be separate from the rest of the child's medical records. I suppose its just the connotation of exemption. 

 

I feel the same way.  I had to turn in my daughter's philosophical exemption today - the nurse kept calling and bugging me for it - and it just felt, wrong.  To me, my daughter's vaccine status is not the school's business.

 

Now if my child were contagious with something...that is a matter of public health and a different story.

post #11 of 35
9/19/12 at 1:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

The fact that you went straight to mandatory vaccines makes me thing you do think discussions of tightening exemptions is the same thing or similar to being in favour of mandatory vaccines.  Please clarify if I am wrong.  

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. I know we disagree on my things on these boards, but I would still appreciate if we kept the tone friendly. 

post #12 of 35
9/19/12 at 3:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

If being in favour of tightening of exemptions= being in favour of mandatory vaccines, then yes, it is a discussion on mandatory vaccines.

 

If being in favour of tightening vaccines does not equal being in favour of mandatory vaccines, then it is not a discussion on mandatory vaccines.

 

The fact that you went straight to mandatory vaccines makes me thing you do think discussions of tightening exemptions is the same thing or similar to being in favour of mandatory vaccines.  Please clarify if I am wrong.  

 

 

No you're just trying to pick a fight. 

 

And seriously?  Exemptions and vaccinations go hand in hand.  Your word play means nothing other than you know what you're trying to do... you're just terrible at it.

 

And to answer your initial question I'm going with FALSE. 

post #13 of 35
9/19/12 at 5:32am
Let's keep in on topic and not personal, ok folks? A couple of these recent posts cross the line, and I'd appreciate if you hit the handy "edit" button before I have to hit the nasty "delete" button. Not sure if your post crosses the line? Edit.

And, to clarify: Yes, we do host *discussion* of mandatory vaccination. We do not host posts suggesting or pushing for mandatory vaccination because that is essentially the opposite of what MDC supports: parents making their own informed choices.
post #14 of 35
9/19/12 at 6:05am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imakcerka View Post

 

 

 

And seriously?  Exemptions and vaccinations go hand in hand.  Your word play means nothing other than you know what you're trying to do... you're just terrible at it.

 

And to answer your initial question I'm going with FALSE. 

Why false?

 

 

None-the-less a few posters lately have been  saying things like we need to tighten up vaccine exemptions, and questioning the legitimacy of religious exemptions, and I think it is a load of crap.   What they really want is no unvaccinated child in their school.  School is an integral part of many peoples lives.  Their kids like it.  Parents need to go to work.  Saying "unvaccinated kids can't go to school without these exemptions, which we want tightened" is pretty much the same as making vaccine mandatory.  If not, it is a real class issue.  Families who are wealthy enough to be able to consider one person staying home and HSing and have kids who thrive in HSing get to choose, but everyone else? - Too bad.

 

Exemptions and vaccines do not have to go hand in hand.  They do not in many other developed  nations.  I have seen no evidence that exemptions cause the overall VPD rate to go down. 


Edited by kathymuggle - 9/19/12 at 8:22am
post #15 of 35
9/19/12 at 7:11am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. I know we disagree on my things on these boards, but I would still appreciate if we kept the tone friendly. 


Fair point.  I will edit.

post #16 of 35
9/19/12 at 8:31am

It's possible that all exemptions cross the line of mandatory vaccines, but I think that the line is truly crossed when the exemptions apply to all children, whether publicly schooled, privately schooled or home schooled.  I have a hard time feeling that vaccines are mandatory in my state (WA), where as a home schooler I don't need to address that issue at all.  Or if a private school is required by the government to have a vaccination policy.  Certainly in the adult world, certain careers are just about impossible to enter into without being vaccinated.  The military.  Hospitals.

 

So, in my head I need to work backwards from that point to find where the line starts to be crossed.  I know that making exemptions easy is not the same as the freedom to choose because I also believe that requiring a (free of charge) permit for a peaceable assembly is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" because the permit can be denied.  

 

So.... working this out as I write..... according to my own logic about similar issues, I would have to say that requiring exemptions is a kind of mandatory vaccinations policy.  But it is a matter of degrees, same as with the comparison to permits.  Peaceable assembly does still exist here.  Requiring a permit does not abolish the right to peaceable assembly ("abridge"--yes) and (stay with me here) requiring exemptions in some instances (public school, sorry, pretty big "instance") but not others doesn't quite reach an absolute policy of mandatory vaccinations population-wide, like the California bill seems to be attempting to do.

 

Thinking on my toes a bit--and without coffee!--so I don't expect this to be airtight logic.  It is a first-thought argument, nothing more.

post #17 of 35
9/19/12 at 12:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Why false?

 

 

None-the-less a few posters lately have been  saying things like we need to tighten up vaccine exemptions, and questioning the legitimacy of religious exemptions, and I think it is a load of crap.   What they really want is no unvaccinated child in their school.  School is an integral part of many peoples lives.  Their kids like it.  Parents need to go to work.  Saying "unvaccinated kids can't go to school without these exemptions, which we want tightened" is pretty much the same as making vaccine mandatory.  If not, it is a real class issue.  Families who are wealthy enough to be able to consider one person staying home and HSing and have kids who thrive in HSing get to choose, but everyone else? - Too bad.

 

Exemptions and vaccines do not have to go hand in hand.  They do not in many other developed  nations.  I have seen no evidence that exemptions cause the overall VPD rate to go down. 

 I agree. I find it incredible hypocritical when people say they respect a parents right to do what they feel is in the best interest of their child, yet support tightening up exemptions.

 

Sweet Silver - I get your points however lets take Washington state where there are apparently no laws vaccine requirements when it comes to homeschooling. Kathy has a great point, What about the family that cannot afford to homeschool? Their right to an education should not be contigent upon whether or not they are vaccinated.

Also comparing obtaining a permit to assemble as being something that is mandatory is a bit different as obtaining this permit doesn't carry risk of injury and death.

 

I also find the judement people (and states) pass on others when they question the "legitimacy" of religious exemptions offensive. Who is anyone to question my faith, my beliefs and my personal relationship with God or a higher power as I define HIM/it and what He/it means to me.

post #18 of 35
9/19/12 at 4:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

 I agree. I find it incredible hypocritical when people say they respect a parents right to do what they feel is in the best interest of their child, yet support tightening up exemptions.

 

Sweet Silver - I get your points however lets take Washington state where there are apparently no laws vaccine requirements when it comes to homeschooling. Kathy has a great point, What about the family that cannot afford to homeschool? Their right to an education should not be contigent upon whether or not they are vaccinated.

Also comparing obtaining a permit to assemble as being something that is mandatory is a bit different as obtaining this permit doesn't carry risk of injury and death.

 

I also find the judement people (and states) pass on others when they question the "legitimacy" of religious exemptions offensive. Who is anyone to question my faith, my beliefs and my personal relationship with God or a higher power as I define HIM/it and what He/it means to me.

Just to clarify, I agree the assembly permits was not a perfect example, but I was also trying to explain that I agreed that exemptions or (tightening them) was a form of mandatory vaccination policy.  And I agree about your point of public education.  I haven't posted in a while, but others might recognize my past stance on vaccinations and on requiring them.  

 

When finding the line where I would say "this is this and that is that and that is where it begins" I find it easiest to work backwards.  A policy affecting children like the one California is considering is most definitely in my mind a mandatory vaccination policy.  Requiring exemptions for public school students but not private school students or homeschool students, in effect *not every child* is a type of mandatory policy, but clearly less draconian.  So...still mandatory?  If they don't require exemptions for (in WA anyway) large segments of the population?  Having found where is issue is clear, now I ask this to help to try to find where that line *begins*.  *Any* policy that requires exemptions is, in effect, a mandatory policy?  Even, like in WA where it is easy to get exemptions, without hassle usually?  Is the severity of the requirements to obtain an exemption important to the question as to whether or not it amounts to mandatory vaccinations?  (And, remembering the original topic therefore--wanting to tighten exemptions being a polite way to say you are in favor of mandatory vaccination?)

 

I ponder these things "outloud" and find it as good an exercise in critical thought as some of my other pet issues.

 

BTW, 2 things to let you know where I am coming from:  I believe that parents have the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate.  And I HS, even though I scrape along by the skin of our teeth (and they are getting very, very sore right at this moment.  I could really use some good breaks, financially!)  

post #19 of 35
9/19/12 at 6:03pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetSilver View Post

 

 

.  Requiring exemptions for public school students but not private school students or homeschool students, in effect *not every child* is a type of mandatory policy, but clearly less draconian.  So...still mandatory?

 

I would argue that if any child is not allowed in school because of their vaccine status, then vaccination (at least in terms of school) is mandatory.

 

 

 If they don't require exemptions for (in WA anyway) large segments of the population?  Having found where is issue is clear, now I ask this to help to try to find where that line *begins*.  *Any* policy that requires exemptions is, in effect, a mandatory policy?  Even, like in WA where it is easy to get exemptions, without hassle usually?

 

If the reality is anyone can get an exemption, then it is not mandatory.  "Exemptions" is still a offensive policy, in my eyes - as it implies someone is allowing your child to go to school, despite their non-vax status.  

 

So the line for me around when something becomes mandatory is when it excludes people based on non-compliance with their guideline.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If anyone can easily get an exemption, then it is not mandatory.  "Exemptions" is still an offensive word, in my eyes, as it implies someone is allowing your child to go to school, when in reality your child has a right to go to public school.

 

The line for me around when something is mandatory is when it excludes people based on non-compliance with their guidelines.

 

For me this issue goes beyond school - can something be said to be mandatory if the imposed penalty for not choosing it really limits your choices?  It isn't mandatory in the sense that people are going to come to your house and forcibly vaccinate your kid, but if you feel you have no other option but to vaccinate due to your work/daycare/school options - it is far from the informed free choice we all want.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 9/20/12 at 4:48am
post #20 of 35
9/20/12 at 6:44am
It doesn't matter kathy.
New Posts  All Forums:
 
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Wanting to tighten vaccine exemption is a polite way of saying you are in favour of mandatory vaccines.