What rights do non-vaxers want? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 125Likes
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-18-2014, 08:01 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
What rights do non-vaxers want?

There are lots of post here about individual preferences, but I think the real issue is public policy.

Do you want to right for you kids to go to public school regardless of their vaccine status without having to file an exemption?

Do you want the right for the non-vaxed to never be selectively quarantined during an outbreak?

Do you want to right to exposure yourself and your kids to anyone, anytime in spite of their vaccine status, disease status, whether they are infectious or not?

Do you believe that governments should have no powers whatosever to promote the general welfare?
tadamsmar is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-18-2014, 08:51 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,224
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Questions in bold.

Do you want to right for you kids to go to public school regardless of their vaccine status without having to file an exemption?

Yes

Do you want the right for the non-vaxed to never be selectively quarantined during an outbreak?

No. I am ok with non-vaxxers and those who have lasped on their vaccines, as well as those who cannot be vaccinated or who do not show decent antibodies on titre tests to be quarantined during a significant/widespread outbreak of an incredibly serious disease - such as diptheria. Think Contagion scenario. Really if this happens, I think we should all stay home


Do you want to right to exposure yourself and your kids to anyone, anytime in spite of their vaccine status, disease status, whether they are infectious or not?

Sickness is the variable. Assuming no one is sick I have as much right to go to public places as anyone else, and without announcing vaccine status. If I am sick, I should remain at home or apart from people if at all possible - just like anyone else. I learned a new words yesterday from you - satisficing.

"Satisficing is a decision-making strategy or cognitive heuristic that entails searching through the available alternatives until an acceptability threshold is met."

I believe avoiding going out when sick and practicing good hygeine (washing hands, coughing into sleeves) is satisficing. It is more than many people do.


Do you believe that governments should have no powers whatosever to promote the general welfare?


I think the government should promote scientifically sound public health practices through education. I do not think they should apply coersive tactics, in the vast majority of circumstances.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 07-18-2014 at 10:08 AM.
kathymuggle is online now  
Old 07-18-2014, 09:05 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Kathy, I think there is a contradiction in your position.

You seem to believe in mandatory quarantines in certain situation, but you seem to be saying that governments should not have the power to apply coersive tactics.

But mandatory quarantines are police actions. They are a coersive tactic.

Also, in your answer starting with "Sickness is the variable..." you seem to be lapsing into making statements about personal ethics (as is common on this board) rather than public policy. The issue is should you have the right or should government have the power to enforce.
tadamsmar is offline  
Old 07-18-2014, 09:32 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,224
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
Kathy, I think there is a contradiction in your position.

You seem to believe in mandatory quarantines in certain situation, but you seem to be saying that governments should not have the power to apply coersive tactics.

But mandatory quarantines are police actions. They are a coersive tactic.

Also, in your answer starting with "Sickness is the variable..." you seem to be lapsing into making statements about personal ethics (as is common on this board) rather than public policy. The issue is should you have the right or should government have the power to enforce.
Well, then I will modify my statement. Certain coersive actions should only be allowed under extreme circumstance.

As per the bolded…so?

There are two matrixes upon which to base a vaccine decision.

1. Public. Public looks at the masses, but not at individual circumstances. It is what recommendation are based on.

2. Private. Look at your own circumstances - risk factors, lifestyle, etc. etc.

I make decisions from the personal, for so many, many reason.

In any event, no the government should not have the right to insist I stay home 24/7 because I am unvaxxed. They don't even insist sick people stay home (unless they have one of a rather short list of uncommon quartine disease). As such it would be targetting one group of people when another group of people (those who prance around sick) are, by any defintion, doing something much more liklely to result in disease transmission. It would be discriminatory.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 07-18-2014 at 10:17 AM.
kathymuggle is online now  
Old 07-18-2014, 10:01 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 664
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Do you want to right for you kids to go to public school regardless of their vaccine status without having to file an exemption?

Yes, however I already have that where I live.

Do you want the right for the non-vaxed to never be selectively quarantined during an outbreak?

Why should the non-vaxed be quarantined for diseases like pertussis when the vaccine does not prevent carriage or transmission?
Knowing that the vaccinated can still get the disease they are vaccinated for, if a major outbreak occurs in this day and age of Skype etc., it would probably be more prudent just to shut down the whole school and provide education online until it passes.

Otherwise, I think the general rule of "if you're sick, stay home until you're better" should apply across the board.

Do you want to right to exposure yourself and your kids to anyone, anytime in spite of their vaccine status, disease status, whether they are infectious or not?
Exposing yourself is illegal where I live.
Seriously, I have no idea what your question is asking.

Do you believe that governments should have no powers whatosever to promote the general welfare?

What do you mean by promote? Somehow I don't think you mean just to educate. Forcing people to undergo medical procedures is IMO a form of slavery, and here in Canada would violate our Constitution.
samaxtics is online now  
Old 07-18-2014, 10:13 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
Do you want to right for you kids to go to public school regardless of their vaccine status without having to file an exemption?

Yes, however I already have that where I live.

Do you want the right for the non-vaxed to never be selectively quarantined during an outbreak?

Why should the non-vaxed be quarantined for diseases like pertussis when the vaccine does not prevent carriage or transmission?
Knowing that the vaccinated can still get the disease they are vaccinated for, if a major outbreak occurs in this day and age of Skype etc., it would probably be more prudent just to shut down the whole school and provide education online until it passes.

Otherwise, I think the general rule of "if you're sick, stay home until you're better" should apply across the board.

Do you want to right to exposure yourself and your kids to anyone, anytime in spite of their vaccine status, disease status, whether they are infectious or not?
Exposing yourself is illegal where I live.
Seriously, I have no idea what your question is asking.

Do you believe that governments should have no powers whatosever to promote the general welfare?

What do you mean by promote? Somehow I don't think you mean just to educate. Forcing people to undergo medical procedures is IMO a form of slavery, and here in Canada would violate our Constitution.
Canada has a eugenics program that was in force for more than 40 years without being ruled unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Eugenics_Board

Granted, some suits were won, but maybe that was more malpractice than a issue about constitutional powers. I can't see that a issue about constitutional powers was ever raised.

I kind of doubt that forcing people to undergo medical procedures is a violation of Canada's constitution. Has the constitution been amended to address this?
tadamsmar is offline  
Old 07-18-2014, 10:23 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,224
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post

I kind of doubt that forcing people to undergo medical procedures is a violation of Canada's constitution. Has the constitution been amended to address this?
Do you think the constitution should permit forcing people (assuming mental competance) to undergo medical procedures?

Do you live in Canada?

I do . I would bet every dime I own that no sane doctor would give me a vaccine without my express consent, even in an outbreak. They would be in so much trouble.

I do think hcp use weasley ways around laws where children are concerned - either lie to parents (deliberately or not) about need for vaccines for school, or try and pressure "mature minors" whose parents aren't around into vaccination - but assault someone who is clearly saying "NO" to vaccines? NOPE.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 07-18-2014 at 11:24 AM.
kathymuggle is online now  
Old 07-18-2014, 11:14 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Do you think the constitution should be allowed to force people (assuming mental competance) to undergo medical procedures?

Do you live in Canada?

I do . I would bet every dime I own that no sane doctor would give me a vaccine without my express consent, even in an outbreak. They would be in so much trouble.

I do think hcp use weasley ways around laws where children are concerned - either lie to parents (deliberately or not) about need for vaccines for school, or try and pressure "mature minors" whose parents aren't around into vaccination - but assault someone who is clearly saying "NO" to vaccines? NOPE.
The laws of Canada are not hidden from people who don't live in Canada.

I was making an observation about the narrow question of what powers a constitution grants. People can screw up when executing power, and there are additional limits on power that have nothing to do with rights and powers granted under a constitutions, like limits arising from will of the majority in a democracy.
tadamsmar is offline  
Old 07-18-2014, 11:24 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
The sort of regulation you want reminds me of the situation in the US relative to radon in homes.

Congress does not allow the federal government to regulate radon in homes. The EPA is allowed to do some public outreach, and they have a nice web site on the matter:

http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html

There are state regulations designed to ensure that you can't sue the seller if you buy a home with high radon levels and it kills you or your loved ones.

There are about 20,000 deaths per year in the US from radon in homes, and most people don't even know it. There are radon survivor groups that try to get the word out and all that.
tadamsmar is offline  
Old 07-18-2014, 11:24 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,224
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Do you think the constitution should permit forcing people (assuming mental competance) to undergo medical procedures?

.
You did not answer the question.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 07-18-2014, 11:28 AM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,560
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post

Do you believe that governments should have no powers whatosever to promote the general welfare?
Over here in Canada we have universal healthcare. There's a lot wrong with Canada's healthcare system, but there's a lot that's right too. And the parental leave here is a lot better than in the US, which means that far more parents have the option of isolating their vulnerable newborns during flu season or when pertussis is going around instead of hoping that giving an unreliable vaccine to lots of people will somehow stop their kid from picking up those illnesses in daycare. There's still a lot of pressure to vaccinate, but I think that removing "will my insurance cover it" and "can I afford it" from the process of deciding whether to seek basic healthcare does more to promote general welfare than threatening to exclude kids from school if they aren't up-to-date on an ever-expanding list of vaccines.

eta: what I'm getting at is that the government has the power to promote general welfare by providing access to useful services.
rachelsmama is offline  
Old 07-18-2014, 11:38 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Do you think the constitution should permit forcing people (assuming mental competance) to undergo medical procedures?
I'll give a tentative no. Can't think of a real-world example where it's necessary to promote the general welfare.

I guess you don't include cases where the government overules the parents religious objections to save a child's life? I think the government should have the power to do that.
tadamsmar is offline  
Old 07-18-2014, 11:50 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,224
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
I guess you don't include cases where the government overules the parents religious objections to save a child's life? I think the government should have the power to do that.
I did not say that.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 07-18-2014, 02:27 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 664
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
Canada has a eugenics program that was in force for more than 40 years without being ruled unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Eugenics_Board

Granted, some suits were won, but maybe that was more malpractice than a issue about constitutional powers. I can't see that a issue about constitutional powers was ever raised.

I kind of doubt that forcing people to undergo medical procedures is a violation of Canada's constitution. Has the constitution been amended to address this?
When Canadians refer to the Constitution, we are referring to the 1982 Version which enacted the Charter of Freedoms and Rights.

Certainly Alberta's history with the Eugenics Board is a most shameful one and I would not doubt for one minute that it could have been the impetus behind current medical rights. But it happened in a time when there was only a Bill of Rights which was Federal, not Constitutional.

As well there is Canadian Medical Law:

Quote:
The legal principles and ethics that have arisen out of case law and Supreme Court decisions, comprise a body of knowledge that grants “Every individual the right to information on material risks and the fundamental right of persons to be free from unwanted physical interference. Medical care is wrongful and a ‘battery’ unless the patient has given consent to it. It is an essential prerequisite to the provision of medical services.” Furthermore, the patient must understand the risks, no matter how statistically insignificant these may be. “When a patient reads, understands, and signs a written consent to treatment or surgery there is express consent……… and express consent is established when a patient declares his willingness to submit to a medical treatment.”(1)
http://vran.org/exemptions/canadian-...t-your-rights/
samaxtics is online now  
Old 07-18-2014, 02:38 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 664
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
I guess you don't include cases where the government overules the parents religious objections to save a child's life? I think the government should have the power to do that.
I don't agree that governments should have the power to overrule a parent's objection when the procedure does not meet a very high standard of safety or effectiveness, is serving only to make them feel like they are doing something but in reality it's making the child worse, and where other alternatives exist.
samaxtics is online now  
Old 07-18-2014, 09:19 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
The Pelletier case is interesting in relation to this discussion.

I think medical care should be a matter of choice whether to accept or decline. And I think over-ruling parents on medical care should be approached very cautiously. The medical profession doesn't have a wonderful track record when it comes to the best treatment options. They are quite capable of making the wrong judgment calls, not being up on the latest research or not knowing all the circumstances in a particular situation.

Informed consent is absolutely key.
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-18-2014, 09:27 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
There is also the whole problem of conflicts of interest for doctors when they recommend a treatment. Here is a scenario which actually does occur.

A patient has advanced cancer and is unlikely to live more than a few months. Their oncologist is a hospital employee and the hospital makes a healthy profit out of their oncology unit's chemotherapy center. The best thing for the patient would be hospice care in their home, with support from family and the opportunity to go through their last months dealing with just the illness rather than the illness and chemotherapy treatments. However, the hospital will lose many thousands of dollars in income if the doctor recommends to the patient that they have exhausted all possible benefits from chemotherapy and they should just give up the struggle. Obviously, if a patient is DETERMINED to keep fighting the cancer that should be an option, but real informed consent would involve an open discussion of all the choices with the advantages and disadvantages clearly laid out.

I think that combining legal enforcement with medical conflicts of interest could be a lethal combo.

Another example is the push to vaccinate medical staff against influenza every year. The evidence of benefit is mixed, the evidence that the vaccine prevents carriage and transmission is less than stellar and the precedent of forcing medical treatment as part of employment strikes me as one of those slippery slope situations. Too much like the old "company store" systems used by factory owners to keep their workers enslaved, although it is not an exact metaphor. But hospitals push flu vaccines on patients and they want to push them on staff. Ugh.
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-19-2014, 12:23 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Conflict of interest over money and healthcare (as in the example above) is in my opinion one of the best reasons to move to state funded healthcare - let's separate a persons worth and the actual amount if money it costs to help them as much as possible.
prosciencemum is offline  
Old 07-19-2014, 09:32 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 664
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Conflict of interest over money and healthcare (as in the example above) is in my opinion one of the best reasons to move to state funded healthcare - let's separate a persons worth and the actual amount if money it costs to help them as much as possible.
PSM, that happens in countries with universal healthcare too. There was a survey done in the UK and many of the doctors would refuse the cancer treatment that other people are put through.
I'll look for the link later.
samaxtics is online now  
Old 07-19-2014, 09:51 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,609
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Conflict of interest over money and healthcare (as in the example above) is in my opinion one of the best reasons to move to state funded healthcare - let's separate a persons worth and the actual amount if money it costs to help them as much as possible.
You write this from the land of the NHS and the "The ********* Care Pathway" which is all about money and the economics of healthcare. It is basically legal doctor assisted death. A patient deemed to have not chance is taken off all food and fluids, and put into a morphine coma and allowed to die of dehydration. My father was a victim of this practice.

t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 07-19-2014, 09:53 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,609
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
I am not sure why my post was censored, where it gets bleeped out, it should read L I V E R P O O L, what's offensive about that?

t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 07-19-2014, 12:08 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
You write this from the land of the NHS and the "The ********* Care Pathway" which is all about money and the economics of healthcare. It is basically legal doctor assisted death. A patient deemed to have not chance is taken off all food and fluids, and put into a morphine coma and allowed to die of dehydration. My father was a victim of this practice.
BOTH my parents were victims of this as well..most recently my mother two weeks ago...the nurse 'decided' mother couldn't swallow anymore, and thus ensued the morphine coma for a week before she succombed. Same with my father in the hospital with emphysema, and passed with hospital aquired MRSA and C-DIFF on a morphine death...when it comes to what insurance deems 'worthy' of living, it's more cost effective to have dr assisted death rather than run up more insurance premiums keeping someone alive. Not only has that been my experience with my parents, but the elderly in general on medicare, when I used to take care of them.
emmy526 is online now  
Old 07-19-2014, 12:21 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 664
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
I don't think this was the article but it is similar

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ed-cancer.html

Quote:
He hit the headlines worldwide last month after publishing an essay in the online magazine Zocalo Public Square, which argues that most practising doctors would not put themselves through ‘life-saving’ interventions that are big on promises, but small on success, and involve great pain and distress.
The doctors won’t tell this to their patients, though. Instead, they encourage them to take the treatments.
Quote:
Medics’ scepticism about the worth of their own ‘lifesaving’ interventions has long been suspected. In one poll, around half of German specialists admitted that they would not undergo the operations they recommended to their patients.
Dr Eckart Fiedler, of the German health insurance company Barmer Ersatzkasse, said the 1996 survey showed that doctors felt many patients would be better off foregoing operations and instead taking their chances without the surgeon’s knife.
samaxtics is online now  
Old 07-19-2014, 02:20 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
True informed consent. The only thing that gives the healthcare recipient a chance. Not a big chance, but a chance.
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:10 PM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
When Canadians refer to the Constitution, we are referring to the 1982 Version which enacted the Charter of Freedoms and Rights.

Certainly Alberta's history with the Eugenics Board is a most shameful one and I would not doubt for one minute that it could have been the impetus behind current medical rights. But it happened in a time when there was only a Bill of Rights which was Federal, not Constitutional.

As well there is Canadian Medical Law:

http://vran.org/exemptions/canadian-...t-your-rights/

Here's the situation in Quebec:


http://www.msss.gouv.qc.ca/sujets/sa...ugeole-2011-en

They require parents to provide proof of vaccination as preparation for selective quarantine of non-vaxers.
tadamsmar is offline  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:11 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,609
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
As I non-vaxer, all I ask is that vaccinations, like any other invasive medical procedure, are always a matter of choice.

t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 07-19-2014, 05:40 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 664
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
Here's the situation in Quebec:


http://www.msss.gouv.qc.ca/sujets/sa...ugeole-2011-en

They require parents to provide proof of vaccination as preparation for selective quarantine of non-vaxers.
Are you in Quebec tadamsmar?

Proof of vaccination is only for measles. Even so, vaccination for measles is not mandatory. Here is the consent/refusal form. http://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/...12-278-13A.pdf

From your link:

Quote:
Should a school report a case of measles, and depending on how the illness evolves, non-vaccinated individuals may be asked to stay home until the outbreak has ended. During an outbreak, such individuals may return to school upon providing valid proof of vaccination. This measure is intended to protect the health of unprotected individuals and their communities.
Interestingly Quebec is the only province that compensates for vaccine injuries.

Quote:
The Quebec program provides compensation for any person who suffers "grave and permanent mental or physical damage" caused by a designated vaccination or by a disease contracted from an immunized person. It also applies to injury as a result of "being a foetus of an immunized person." http://lawreformcommission.sk.ca/vaccinationfinal.pdf
my bold
samaxtics is online now  
Old 07-19-2014, 10:49 PM
 
Viola P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 893
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
There are lots of post here about individual preferences, but I think the real issue is public policy.

Do you want to right for you kids to go to public school regardless of their vaccine status without having to file an exemption?

Do you want the right for the non-vaxed to never be selectively quarantined during an outbreak?

Do you want to right to exposure yourself and your kids to anyone, anytime in spite of their vaccine status, disease status, whether they are infectious or not?

Do you believe that governments should have no powers whatosever to promote the general welfare?
1. Yes

2. You phrased this in a passive way, which is why it sounds weird. But the answer is yes - I definitely don't want the government to be able to detain me or my children because of vaccine status.

3. Is this a serious question? I'm so confused. Obviously I want to be able to go outside without having to be vaccinated. Is that what you meant?

4. It wouldn't make sense to believe that governments should exist while believing that they shouldn't promote welfare in some sense. Are you asking about political beliefs maybe? Like whether non vaccers are anarchists? Confused again :/
Viola P is offline  
Old 07-20-2014, 01:19 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Mirzam and emmy256 - I'm really sorry for your recent losses.

The sad thing is of course the NHS has a fixed budget so choices do have to be made about what treatments are offered.

I'm personally glad those choices are neither (a) based on how much a patient can afford or (b) based on profit margins for the hospital.

And I'm also glad not to have to make or have been (yet) impacted by those decisions.
prosciencemum is offline  
Old 07-20-2014, 09:10 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,609
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
Prosciencemum, I am going to assume you meant well, but you post was incredibly insensitive. My father wasn't given a choice in the matter, the L I V E R P O O L Care Pathway is legal murder sanctioned by the NHS. This is off topic, so hopefully it will end here.

t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off