The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Vaccination: objections to your conscientious objection > Comments

Vaccination: objections to your conscientious objection : Comments

By Martin Bouckaert, published 9/5/2012

What happens when the doctor refuses to sign the conscientious objector’s form?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Thus, to me, it is not unreasonable that some individuals are concerned to the extent of objecting.

My own daughter is needle phobic, and I needed to sit her on my lap and restrain her in order that she may be vaccinated for requirements above and beyond those of permanent immigration to Australia.

It is not something that I took any great pleasure out of, however ..

Of course, checking the results by way of lab test and seroconversion remains to be done, and something that we are working towards as a family unit.
Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 10 May 2012 3:35:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

The herd is imperilled by germs and viruses, not by people. One cannot imperil another by non-action.

Technically I can tell you that if 99% of the people believe in your herd-values (eg. biological survival being first priority) and get vaccinated accordingly, then there's practically no danger from the other 1%, but this is not a technical issue, it is a matter of principle: what gives you or your herd the right to trample on other people's values, including even values which they hold dearer than their own lives, in the name of your herd and your own values, especially people who never asked or consented to be in your herd to begin with?

If you truly consider me and my kind as your enemies or the enemies of your herd, then do the honourable thing and instead of playing with needles, put bullets straight through our heads!

Dear DreamOn,

I agree that it is a reasonable demand, in certain circumstances when someone is seriously suspected of having a contagious condition, for them to remain on their property and not access public space until that condition is over. Access to public space is a privilege, not a right, so it may be denied and this should be a sufficient medical measure to protect "society". It is however a horrifying thought that currently one can be taken for "treatment" against their will, which might violate not only their body but their spiritual integrity as well.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 10 May 2012 6:10:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

"...put bullets straight through our heads!"

Pathetic argument and pure poppycock.

As for the sustenance of biological life. People who reject immunisation do so for the most part on "biological" grounds. No man is an island where communicable diseases are concerned. It's interesting that these people enjoy living in a community, yet are happy to skate along relying on everyone else's immunity.

"The herd is imperilled by germs and viruses, not by people."

In case you haven't noticed, man has developed the means to provide immunity to certain germs and viruses. Some people choose not to avail themselves or their children of immunity, thereby creating gaps in the immunity of society.

I'm sure your reasoning would go down a treat with the parents of a two month-old baby suffering from whooping cough. This baby needs to have multiple vaccines over a six month period before it is immune - so your "there's practically no danger" might sound a bit hollow to them.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 10 May 2012 6:59:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The debate over the last 4 pages is so dogmatic, every writer appearing to be 100 per cent certain they are right.
There is a lot we don't know about vaccination because there is so precious little 'high-quality' research conducted. I mean real, randomized, controlled, double blinded studies. The case for efficacy and safety of all vaccines seems to have been decided, in many people's minds, 100 years ago. Science should not operate like a blind-faith religion.
I don't claim to know all the answers. What is most likely is that some vaccines work well, some less well, and some are almost useless. Unfortunately we keep using the useless ones for decades longer than we should because of inadequate monitoring; the 'head in the sand', blind-faith attitude.
I do wish that GPs would know more about the vaccines they dispense. Queries like "does this one contain mercury or aluminium?" are usually met with blank stares. The dispensers of vaccines would gain more respect if they had rigorous, thorough knowledge of what they are dispensing.
Posted by DrKnowalittle, Thursday, 10 May 2012 7:04:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

"pathetic argument and pure poppycock"

It seems that not only you have no intention of honouring people with values other than your own, but cannot even honour yourself by fair fighting.
If I am indeed your enemy, then shoot me, act like a lion and not like a hyena.

I already condemned (Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 10:58:26 PM) those who reject immunisation solely on biological grounds, yet still wish to benefit from others' immunity. Your mentioning it again probably means that you didn't care to read my answers.

It seems that you still do not understand the meaning of non-action: nobody can create a gap by not acting. There is a fundamental difference between declining to help others vs. doing something against them. Your assumption that others MUST fulfill your desires, is childish.

The statement that if 99% of the population are immunized, then the unimmunised 1% do not pose a risk, comes from the doctors, not from myself. I mentioned it because if you are thinking rationally, then it may allay your fears, not because it makes any difference to me.

Dear DrKnowalittle,

There may well be those who doubt the scientific claim that vaccination is [medically-]safe. They may possibly even be right - completely or partially. There is also no doubt that the metal packaging currently used for vaccines - mercury or aluminium, is bad for health.

However, I don't come from that camp and my position does not depend on scientific findings, whatever they may be. All I stand for here, is for the absolute autonomy of the individual over their own body and over their spiritual integrity as well as for freedom of association, sanctioning one's free choice to belong or otherwise to any given group of other people (including the so-called "society").
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 10 May 2012 10:09:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

It makes no difference what grounds people reject immunisation - the outcome is the same. You condemn those who do so on biological grounds , yet sanction others who do so on spiritual grounds. They "both" benefit from herd immunity.

My "pathetic argument" comment was directed in the main at your parting comment to "put bullets straight through our heads" request - and now "then shoot me". Both comments could best be described as a tad hysterical and not quite balanced. But I've debated you before and you seem to excel at leading yourself and your opponents around in circles, tripping over your own curious logic and contradicting yourself with gay abandon...I should know by now not to waste my time with someone who invents new rules as the discussion progresses.

My main concern is that apathy is likely to grow in a society complacent about immunity and neglectful of the consequences of a lack of vigilance.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 10 May 2012 10:45:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy