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. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Returning to the conscientious objector form, I'd say the doctor in question did exactly the right thing. To put her signature on a piece of paper certifying that the mother was aware of the dangers of not immunising her child, she needs to know that the mother IS aware. Otherwise, she is signing away on a lie. If the mother refused to listen to the doctor's expert knowledge, the doctor would have no way of knowing with any real certainty that the mother DID know the dangers.

Out of interest, Yuyutsu, if forcing immunisation on someone is the equivalent of rape, then surely refusing to be immunised and then knowingly socialising with others, ultimately spreading illness, is the equivalent of willfully infecting them with a disease (and therefore assault)? In that case, the conscientious objector's form would be a vital piece of evidence in their prosecution.
Posted by Otokonoko, Thursday, 10 May 2012 11:24:45 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
>>surely those people under attack have every right for self defense!<<

Couldn't agree more yuyutsu. People with very young children who are not yet immunised against some horrible and potentially fatal diseases have every right to protect themselves from people who refuse to vaccinate themselves or their children. And I'm afraid this argument doesn't cut it:

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

Fail. You can imperil people by non-action. By getting vaccinated you get immunity to some diseases which means you cannot get infected and cannot infect other people without immunity. The only people who can infect other people without immunity - such as infants - are those who are not vaccinated. You are not just putting your children at risk: your are deliberately putting other people's children at risk by potentially turning your children into plague carriers. What the hell gives you the right to do that?

>>Again, please speak for yourself and not for my children. It seems to be part of your belief-system that survival and human numbers equal goodness. Not mine.<<

Please speak for yourself and not other people's children. It seems to be a part of your belief-system that negligent homicide is all hunky-Dorey. Not mine.

TBC
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 11 May 2012 12:59:47 AM
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
>>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?<<

Again we are in agreement Yuyutsu: what gives you the right to trample on the values of those who value their children's lives more than absurd spiritualist claptrap, in the name of your herd and your own values, especially who never asked or consented to be in your herd to begin with? What gives you the right to put other people in harms way through your own selfish actions or inactions?

>>There is also no doubt that the metal packaging currently used for vaccines - mercury or aluminium, is bad for health.<<

Mercury packaging? Now this is something I've got to see. XD

I doubt they use aluminium as a packaging material either: probably glass or plastic. But aluminium is used as packaging for lots of other things like drink cans and it is quite safe: aluminium is remarkably non-toxic.

As for the article: more power to the good doctor. Martin: next time you see them give them a big thumbs up for me and tell them to keep up the good work.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 11 May 2012 1:01:17 AM
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 & Tony Lavis
The mercury and aluminium in some vaccines is not from packaging - don't know how that crept into the posts. They are deliberate ingredients. The mercury is thimerosal, a preservative, and aluminium hydroxide and aluminium sulphate are in some vaccines such as whooping cough, as I understand.

These toxic agents really should not be injected into infants with their undeveloped blood-brain barrieer and general defenses against heavy metals. It would be far better if vaccines were made without these potentially harmful additives. Cheapness is probably the factor, the mercury preservative may give them longer shelf life.

And of course Yuyutsu is absolutely correct about no state authority having the right to inject medication into people against their will. Surely in a country like Australia, where successive generations have given their lives in wars supposedly to protect our freedoms and liberty, no person is going to start suggesting compulsory, state-enforced medication, ah la Nazi Germany or the society of Orwell's book 1984.
Posted by DrKnowalittle, Friday, 11 May 2012 1:57:20 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,

Your own doctors tell that there's a difference regarding reasons not to vaccinate, because those translate into percentages, and percentages so-THEY-say, matter (not to me, I stick to principles, but it matters for them).

Concerned about apathy? You think others have no real reasons to refuse vaccination but apathy? then why not pay them to get vaccinated? surely they won't be apathetic to money! Classic market situation where you're a consumer seeking a product they can produce!

Dear Otokonoko,

I agree that the doctor did right.

Knowingly socialising with others who are concerned about immunization while allowing them to assume that I'm vaccinated (though I'm not), is a form of fraud and should be dealt with accordingly (nothing wrong however about socialising with others who don't mind). If it ever reaches criminal-court, then standard evidence-procedures apply.

Dear Tony,

The key point is the difference between action and non-action. Germs and diseases are part of nature, they are the default: if you go actively to fight them, the onus is on you to avoid injuring others on the way.

If a non-vaccinated person enters your space (private or public), carrying germs without your permission, then they are the violators and you should be able to shoot them.

If you enter the space of a non-vaccinated family and attempt to forcibly vaccinate them or their children, then you are the violator and they should be able to shoot you.

If I enter your space against your will and cause fatal infection, then I'm guilty of homicide, if not even murder.

If you enter my space and forcibly vaccinate me or my children, then you are guilty of an atrocity equivalent to rape.

If I visit your space asking for favours, then it's your right to impose conditions, including to be vaccinated.

If you force me to visit your space (for example a school, that being a crime on its own), where I never asked to go, then you're a brute and have no moral right to demand anything.

Aluminium is commonly associated with Alzheimer.

Forgive my brevity, I'm out-of-posts, back-Sunday.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 11 May 2012 2:42:22 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 mercury is thimerosal<<

Thimerosal is no longer used in childhood vaccines.

>>aluminium hydroxide and aluminium sulphate are in some vaccines such as whooping cough, as I understand.<<

Not the ones I looked at. Although there was one that had aluminium phosphate. I wouldn't worry too much about any of these compounds: aluminium sulfate and phosphate are both used in baking powder. Aluminium hydroxide is used in antacid tablets - probably in a much greater dose than what you'd find in a vaccine. It seem unlikely that these compounds are highly toxic.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 11 May 2012 2:57:14 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. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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