Thank you very much for the information, Martin - I am relieved.

If someone wishes to receive favours from the devil and invite the government into their lives, then they might as well pay the price and it is not necessary to take pity on them.

Curmudgeon,

One's reason to refuse is irrelevant - just as when a lady says 'No', it means NO and she shouldn't have to give a reason. Making a hole in one's body and inserting into it substances which the individual does not approve of, is exactly that - rape!

Those who refuse vaccinations are not increasing any risk, but merely unwilling to volunteer to reduce that risk at the cost of violating their body and/or spirit.

It is your right to seek to reduce that risk, but not through violent means. It is OK to TRY to enlist others' voluntary cooperation, so one possibility for example, would be for those who are eager to reduce the risk of germs to pay/bribe those who do not share that interest into getting vaccinated.

Vaccination is not compulsory.

There is no compulsory vaccination, this is simply a fearmongering strawman lie used by Meryl Dorey so she can stuff her pockets with the maximum amount of money that she can scam from her cult followers with fear and lies.

"The question of a non-vaccination form is to my non legalistic mind nonsense. If a mother does not want her child vaccinated or wants to exempt herself from vaccination sobeit."

Of course you do not actually need to have the "conscientious objector" form signed in order to choose not give your child vaccinations. If you choose not to give your child vaccinations then you simply don't do it and so be it.

What the actual purpose that these "conscientious objector" forms are actually used for by anti-vaccinationists is is to exploit the ridiculous, absurd legal loophole which allows them to claim vaccination incentive payments from Centrelink which are supposed to reward people for taking the time and effort to protect their children and protect public health by taking their children to get vaccinated.

The fact that vaccination denialists and conspiracy theorists are allowed to actually receive those incentive payments despite actually refusing to give their children the vaccinations is absurd.

Yuyutsu

People may/or may not have a reason for refusing. The question is do they have the right to refuse. In this case I would question it - although its highly unlikely that they ever would be compelled - for they are putting others at risk. Think of it as like a epileptic, or someone prone to blackouts, driving a car (there have been cases).. The epileptic's actions puts others at risk.

Although it isn't possible to force people to have vaccinations if they really don't want them, now that I think of it, but it is selfish of them to refuse. It should be a basic obligation of citizenship.

Yuyutsu, the 'rape analogy' is exactly the kind of disrespect to doctors that is as abhorrent as it is ignorant of their profession. First of all, vaccination is not compulsory, therefore when one gets their vaccines, it has to be consented to by the patient, or a guardian of the patient if they are a minor. Because of the scientific evidence that proves that the benefits of vaccination outweighs the risks, it is not child abuse to give a vaccine to a screaming child who doesn't want it if the parent/guardian has consented. Kids will be kids, and fear of the needle is not an uncommon phobia. I have it myself, but I still get my shots.

The 'rape analogy' is a crude attempt at best to put a villainous tune to what is an unquestionably noble profession, and to compare our medical elite to the likes of those that commit actual rape is not just insulting and vulgar, it is belittling to those that are victims of actual rape themselves. Until you have a grasp on what it is that a rape victim goes through, you will never ever be able to compare it to getting vaccinated. They are not the same thing, not even close.

If you want to be taken seriously, stay off the 'rape analogy' please, it is nothing but a vitriolic strawman assault on medical professionals that you know nothing about.

Dear Martin,

Firstly by clarifying that vaccination is not compulsory in Australia I saw the matter as settled.

Secondly, I wasn't accusing any doctors (on the contrary, I even wrote that "I agree that doctors should have the right to refuse to sign against their conscience"), but the government - on the (incorrect) assumption that it makes vaccination compulsory. Doctors do their job, doctors do what doctors have to do - and so long as you are not compelled to have anything to do with them, that's OK.

Thirdly, I never contested the power of parents/guardians to do what they deem is best for their beloved child (although I don't see why it should be conditioned on scientific evidence, which is irrelevant).

Fourthly, I did not compare vaccination with rape - only vaccination against one's will. All I can say is thank God it does not happen in Australia, yet I must stand guard to ensure that it will never happen in the future.

Curmudgeon,

Those who refuse to be vaccinated do not put anyone at risk - the said risk comes from nature and been there all along. If you are upset that some people are not willing to be conscripted into your crusade against nature and fight it just the exact way you like, if you believe that they owe you anything, if you are willing to physically abuse them in order to achieve your end - then think again who is being selfish here!

Yuyutsu,

Those who choose not to have their children vaccinated are still the beneficiaries of herd immunity. It's very easy to be "choosy" in an age where science has enabled us to immunise against what were common and deadly diseases.
There is only one reason parents don't fear the likes of epidemics such as polio and diphtheria these days - and that is because most parents have their children vaccinated.