aliceBB Â Â 10 #1 Posted April 12, 2015 Australia seems set to implement such a policy: Â http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-32274107 Â Difficult one! What do you think? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Timeh   10 #2 Posted April 12, 2015 If you dont let the state inject your child with chemicals then the state wont help you during hard times? That sounds creepy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tzijlstra   11 #3 Posted April 12, 2015 Wholly against it. People have all sorts of reasons not to have their child get their jabs, from religious to a distrust of the effects to a fear of the potential ill effects.  Personally I think immunisation is beneficial, but forcing it on people is beyond acceptable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Frederick1 Â Â 10 #4 Posted April 12, 2015 Wholly against it. People have all sorts of reasons not to have their child get their jabs, from religious to a distrust of the effects to a fear of the potential ill effects. Â Personally I think immunisation is beneficial, but forcing it on people is beyond acceptable. Â Fully agree tzijlstra! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
loraward   10 #5 Posted April 12, 2015 You have to do something as a government, because not vaccinating doesn't just put your own child at risk, it also puts children that can't be done for medical reasons at risk, along with those small number of cases where the vaccine isn't effective.  And all those babies that haven't reached the required age for vaccination, babies are the most funeral group, so the more unvaccinated children there are in their community the greater the risk of babies contracting a disease that is largely preventable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
liza D Â Â 10 #6 Posted April 12, 2015 It will not be long before those on benefits are directed into the "Delousing showers" if we let Cameron and his cronies continue in this "let's persecute the poor" regime. Â Why will it only be those on benefits who are punished for this right of free will? Â Why are they soooo eager for the poor to be vaccinated all of a sudden? Â Wouldn't trust this gov as far as I could throw them. Moneyed scum the lot of them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
JFKvsNixon   11 #7 Posted April 12, 2015 It will not be long before those on benefits are directed into the "Delousing showers" if we let Cameron and his cronies continue in this "let's persecute the poor" regime. Why will it only be those on benefits who are punished for this right of free will?  Why are they soooo eager for the poor to be vaccinated all of a sudden?  Wouldn't trust this gov as far as I could throw them. Moneyed scum the lot of them.  This proposal hasn't got anything to do with our government! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Timeh   10 #8 Posted April 12, 2015 It will not be long before those on benefits are directed into the "Delousing showers" if we let Cameron and his cronies continue in this "let's persecute the poor" regime. Why will it only be those on benefits who are punished for this right of free will?  Why are they soooo eager for the poor to be vaccinated all of a sudden?  Wouldn't trust this gov as far as I could throw them. Moneyed scum the lot of them.  Did you even read the link?  ---------- Post added 12-04-2015 at 10:03 ----------  This proposal hasn't got anything to do with our government!  Beat me to it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest sibon   #9 Posted April 12, 2015 This proposal hasn't got anything to do with our government!  Correct.  It is a lousy policy too.  What we should do is to prevent unvaccinated children from using state facilities, such as schools. If people want to opt out of an important public health program, that is up to them. They shouldn't have the right to endanger others by their actions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
iansheff   88 #10 Posted April 12, 2015 Correct. It is a lousy policy too.  What we should do is to prevent unvaccinated children from using state facilities, such as schools. If people want to opt out of an important public health program, that is up to them. They shouldn't have the right to endanger others by their actions.  Then you are penalising those children, they have not chosen not to be vaccinated their parents made the choice for them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest sibon   #11 Posted April 12, 2015 Then you are penalising those children, they have not chosen not to be vaccinated their parents made the choice for them.  Not really. The parents would still have responsibilities towards the children.  For example, the parents would still have a legal responsibility to ensure that their children were educated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
El Cid   220 #12 Posted April 12, 2015 The "no jab, no pay" policy may cost parents more than A$11,000 a year per child in lost benefit payments.  I would favour parents losing small amounts of benefits, if they do not follow government standards. What should the basic government standards be; giving your child a good diet, exercise, being able to swim, intelligence, good health ....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...