The arguments for and against compulsory vaccines

Fcontinuing to Rockland County measles in New York State, authorities have expressed a state of emergency, with cashless children banned from public places, raising important questions about the state duties. t and individuals in relation to public health.

An abrupt virus is spread by people who are coughing and split-up. The vaccine, which is very effective, has been developed from pepper and rubella vaccines since the 1970s as part of the injection of MMR.

Measles around the world fell dramatically when vaccination is more widespread. But his smuggling was shocked by the work of Andrew Wakefield, who tried to connect the MMR vaccine to autism.

There is no such link, and later Wakefield was hit by the General Medical Council for its false work. However, damage has been caused and it has been difficult to get back.

In 2017, the global number of measles cases rose significantly because of vaccine cover gaps in some areas, and there were over 80,000 European cases in 2018.

Risk the face of vaxxer

The World Health Organization has said that anti-vaccination has been one of the top 10 health threats in the world for 2019, and the UK government is considering new legislation forced media companies to remove content. T false information about immunization. A recent move by a US authority that banned unrestricted children from public places is a different approach. They admit that it is hard to police but they say that the new law is an important sign that they are giving out the loss.

Most children who suffer from measles will feel very poor, with a fever, big glands, running eyes and a nose, and a selected rash. Unlucky people develop a breathing or escalation of the brain (encephalitis), and one to two per thousand of the disease will die. This is what happened to Olivia's daughter, seven-year-old Roald Dahl, who died of encephalitis in the 1960s before being immunized.

Should governments go further to make measles vaccines? (Getty /iStock)

When measles prevailed, Dahl feared that some parents were not giving their children, campaigning in the 1980s and applying them directly through an open letter. He recognized that parents were very concerned about the rare risk that could be affected by food seizure (about one million in a million), but explained that children were more likely to die on a bar. chocolate from the jab vaccine.

Dahl opposed the British authorities not to do more to provide children who were vaccinated and were happy with the American approach at the time: there was no vaccine necessary, but under the law; You would have to send your child to school and would have been allowed not to have them if they weren't. vaccine. Indeed, one of the new measures introduced by New York authorities this week is again a ban on children without money from schools.


With an outbreak of measles in America and Europe, should governments go further and make the vaccine compulsory? Most people argue that this is a terrible violation of human rights, but trends are taking place. For example, evidence of a vaccine against a yellow fever virus is necessary for many travelers coming from countries in Africa and Latin America due to concerns that this disease may spread. It appears that nobody is opposed to that.

Also, in some cases when parents refuse a life-saving remedy for a sick child, perhaps for religious reasons, then the courts affect these complaints through child protection laws. But what about law that recognizes that vaccines should be given to protect a child?

Vaccines are seen differently because the child is not actually ill and there are occasional serious side effects. Interestingly, in America, states have the authority to require children to be vaccinated, but they tend not to enforce these laws where there are religious or “philosophical” objections.

There are curious parallels with the introduction of compulsory seatbelts in cars in much of the world. In rare circumstances, a seat belt might actually cause harm by rupturing the spleen or damaging the spine. But the benefits massively outweigh the risks and there are not many campaigners who refuse to buckle up.

I have some sympathy for those anxious about vaccinations. They are bombarded daily by contradictory arguments. Unfortunately, some evidence suggests that the more the authorities try to convince people of the benefits of vaccination, the more suspicious they may become.

I remember taking one of my daughters for the MMR injection aged 12 months. As I held her tight, and the needle approached, I couldn’t help but run through the numbers in my head again, needing to convince myself that I was doing the right thing. And there is something unnatural about inflicting pain on your child through the means of a sharp jab, even if you know it is for their benefit. But if there were any lingering doubts, I just had to think of the many patients with vaccine-preventable diseases who I have looked after as part of my overseas research programme.

Working in Vietnam in the 1990s, I cared not only for measles patients but also for children with diphtheria, tetanus and polio – diseases largely confined to the history books in western medicine. I remember showing around the hospital an English couple newly arrived in Saigon with their young family. “We don’t believe in vaccination for our kids,” they told me. “We believe in a holistic approach. It is important to let them develop their own natural immunity.” By the end of the morning, terrified by what they had seen, they had booked their children into the local clinic for their inoculations.

In Asia, where we have been rolling out programmes to vaccinate against the mosquito-borne Japanese encephalitis virus, a lethal cause of brain swelling, families queue patiently for hours in the tropical sun to get their children inoculated. For them the attitudes of the western anti-vaccinators are perplexing. It is only in the west, where we rarely see these diseases, that parents have the luxury of whimsical pontification on the extremely small risks of vaccination; faced with the horrors of the diseases they prevent, most people would soon change their minds.

Support freelance journalism and subscription to Independent Minds

Tom Solomon is the director of the National Institute for Health Research and a professor of neurology at the University of Liverpool. This article originally appeared on The Conversation

Source link