Have Your Say: Should any vaccines be required for children?

In Regulation and Policy by justine1 Comment

vaccines, children, vaccination, fda regulation

 

One of the most controversial topics in the vaccines industry currently, is the argument involving vaccines for children. Whether it is regarding FDA regulation, vaccine requirements for public schools, or the overall safety of vaccines, the topic presents a heated, two-sided debate.  So which side do you sit on, and why?

 

This week's pro/con debate

 

Proponents argue that vaccination is safe and one of the greatest health developments of the 20th century. They point out that illnesses, including rubella, diphtheria, and whooping cough, which once killed thousands of infants annually are now prevented by vaccination. They contend that anti-vaccination studies are often faulty, biased, and misleading.

Therefore, vaccination should be required for children. No individual should have the right to risk the health of the public solely for the purpose of satisfying their personal moral, philosophical, or religious views.

 

Opponents argue that children's immune systems can deal with most infections naturally, and that the possible side effects of vaccination, including seizures, paralysis, and death, are not worth the risk of safeguarding against non-life threatening illnesses.

Therefore, governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children.  31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan.

 

Please comment below, telling us which side of the fence you sit on and why.

Comments

  1. Jagannath Chatterjee

    As observed, there are two sides of the debate. This debate is not going to go away as the questions asked by the public, particularly the victims and their families, are not being answered. When a family witnesses a previously healthy child disintegrate or die within hours or days of receiving one or many vaccines, the least it expects is acknowledgement. Instead the doctors and the system ignore their plight with gross insensitivity. Then these parents investigate on their own, find the answers, and this obviously results in very bad publicity. The now publicly available Simpsonwood minutes and the incident involving the Danish scientist, Poul Thorsen, investigating into whether vaccines cause autism doesn’t help any. It also does not help that the two other doctors vilified in the Andrew Wakefield controversy have been reinstated with honor after the judicial system found gaping holes in the GMC affair. So while Andrew Wakefield is still called names (despite 28 published studies saying just what he said in his Lancet case study) Doctors Verstraeten and Thorsen still enjoy the confidence of the establishment! It also does not help as disease data reveals that the acute diseases vaccines are credited to have eradicated were down by 90% before the vaccines were introduced. Smallpox has many variants and even doctors cannot distinguish, so the claim that the Smallpox vaccine did the job sounds hollow too. It is also blamed for almost half the deaths caused by Smallpox. And yes, the vaccine was actually given to a very small percentage of the population, so there goes “herd immunity”. Polio is not caused by enteroviruses alone and the alarming rise in cases of Acute Flaccid Paralysis in countries where the Oral Polio Vaccine is being given with gay abandon is making even the hitherto reticent immunization officials squirm. Thus the debate is healthy and must continue.

Leave a Comment

Current ye@r *