Public Health Amendment (Vaccination of Children Attending Child Care Facilities) Bill 2017, specifically the omission of the section related to s87(2)(b)(1) & (2). Relates to the responsibilities of principles of child care services with respect to immunisation, the effects are wider reaching not only disadvantaging working parents (married and single) and their children, but will have other unintended consequences.
The omitting of this section removes the rights of parents to conscientious object or otherwise make an informed decision after weighing the risks and benefits of vaccinations and unvaccinated children won’t be able to attend child care facilities. The flow on effect will be that parents will need to rely on find some alternative arrangements. If they cannot, one parent will need to stay at home to look after the child. Or in the case of single parents, will need to leave their job. Creating significant disadvantage. Parents who are financially well off will be able to afford to continue to object to vaccination, however many parents cannot. Another consequence will be the emergence of underground childcare centres results a step back in disease control, herd immunity unsustained and increase in disease outbreak.
There are other ways of boosting childhood vaccination rates. Furthermore there is no evidence that banning unvaccinated children from child care will be any better than excluding them temporarily during an outbreak situation, which already occurs.
This change, will raise immunisation rates but will cause hardship, inconvenience or financial disadvantage for the target population because parents who need childcare or depend on child care payments or family tax benefits, will have no option but to vaccinate their child. However, is the use of coercion ethical and equitable? In addition, does vaccinating a child by coercion, for instance to secure a place at child care, breach the principle of valid consent (legally valid consent to vaccination, “must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”)?
Is this amendment acceptable in a free and open society?
Conscientious belief is a fundamental right as a human being, and is inseparable from freedom

Parents objecting to vaccinations are idiots who should have their children removed from them if they don't comply.

Yes, this is most painful and depressing.

One unmentioned effect, is the rise of false documents of vaccination, where doctors and nurses are either bribed to produce them or conscientiously agree to provide them. Another possible effect is an increase in suicide rates of parents who heroically kill themselves together with their children in order to save them from being contaminated.

Knowing that these laws already exist and get worse with time, clearly no responsible person should contemplate having children or raising them in Australia.

---

I found this among LDP policies: http://www.ldp.org.au/affordable_childcare

"Governments are increasingly coming under pressure to implement legislation requiring children to be immunised in order to be granted access to childcare and education institutions. The Liberal Democrats vehemently oppose government-imposed medication. The decision to vaccinate should – regardless of the evidence for its efficacy – remain in the hands of the individual parents.

While it is appropriate for parents to seek to avoid exposing their children to others whose vaccination regimen may not be as rigorous as their own, it is not appropriate for the government to impose restrictions on which children a childcare centre may or may not accept. The operators of childcare centres should be able to set admission requirements just as the operators of any other business should. The ability for some childcare centres to accept unvaccinated children and for others to insist upon full vaccination provides a greater degree of choice in the market."

I support 'informed consent' and 'freedom of choice'.
Although I support the science of vaccination in principle, my position is that the quality of vaccines are not safe or effective enough to be mandated.
When they are, I may or may not change my position.
No parent should be mandated to take the potential risk of their child suffereing harmful side effects.

Should both staff and visitors to old age homes be required to have flu vaccinations? It's a parallel issue. If you are a conscientious objector to flu vaccination, then you should not work there or visit; your freedom to chose not to be vaccinated has to be balanced by the resident's freedom not to be exposed to unvaccinated people.
It's similar with child care centres. If your child is unvaccinated because of your freedom of choice, then they should not be at a child-care centre, because other children have the right not to be exposed to unvaccinated kids.
Perhaps all the anti-vax conscientious objectors should set up child-care centres where no vaccinated children can attend. At the least, we'd have an interesting experiment comparing illness rates between the vax and non-vax groups.

Dear Cossomby,

«Should both staff and visitors to old age homes be required to have flu vaccinations?»

This kind of policy should be determined locally by each old-age home.

However, it would be really silly to bar people from entering if they already had the actual flu rather than a vaccination - it's not less effective and some people would definitely prefer this option.

«Perhaps all the anti-vax conscientious objectors should set up child-care centres where no vaccinated children can attend.»

Yes, that's the spirit!

Just for fun, consider if people with small-pox should be segregated from others who may be vulnerable to the viruses.

more and more people are receiving the flu shot. I doubt any honest study has ever been done as to whether they benefit from it. I have had no flu for 30 years and no injection. Hopefully the ' science' is not fraudulent like that of many climate ' scientist'.

There is no logical reason why both parents and children should not be vaccinated.
The informed decision has been carried out by people more qualified than they are.
You do not have freedom when the health of others is concerned - same as you do not have the freedom of speech to hell "FIRE" in a crowded place.
The children may be perfectly healthy but be a carrier of many often fatal diseases. They cannot be kept in a bubble and must at some stage come in contact with others bringing those others into harms way.

//Just for fun, consider if people with small-pox should be segregated from others who may be vulnerable to the viruses.//

Of course they should be quarantined. But why entertain hypotheticals about the only contagion we've managed to eradicate?

Should we quarantine typhoid carriers? Or would that be too much of a violation of their civil liberty to go around infecting everybody else?

//Although I support the science of vaccination in principle, my position is that the quality of vaccines are not safe or effective enough to be mandated.//

99.99% isn't good enough for you?

Do you really think that the alternative - the return of diseases like polio, measles, diptheria etc. - will be more 'safe and effective' than the vaccines that prevent them?

Stop doing drugs, mate.

"I (runner) have had no flu for 30 years" Runner, it goes to show, even the bugs have their minimum standards as to where they will reside.

Issy, Smallpox is a devastating disease caused by the variola virus. In 1980, following an historic global campaign of surveillance and vaccination, the World Health Assembly declared smallpox eradicated – the only infectious disease to achieve this distinction."

Unless the Americans decide to unleash their stockpile of the smallpox virus (germ warfare) we don't have much to worry about on that score.

ttbn, "Parents objecting to vaccinations are idiots who should have their children removed from them if they don't comply." Generally agree, they are not all idiots, some are simply lazy, others are misguided, and yes some are idiots.

"Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits ingesting blood and that Christians should not accept blood transfusions or donate or store their own blood for transfusion. The belief is based on an interpretation of scripture that differs from that of other Christian denominations."

Its not just the pro bug mob who are idiots, we have a buch of religious fundo's who are just as stupid.

Paul,

"Issy, Smallpox is a devastating disease caused by the variola virus. In 1980, following an historic global campaign of surveillance and vaccination, the World Health Assembly declared smallpox eradicated – the only infectious disease to achieve this distinction."

I know, I did say "Just for fun...."; and it's caused by viruses not just one virus, although they are related.

A good article this week on the psychology of anti-vaxxers:

http://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2017/09/02/the-psychology-anti-vaccination/15042744005135

S87 (2) omittion from the act removes the of provisions for informed consent, so if you think informed consent will still be able to be given, it wont. Its removal implies that there are no risks associated with vaccinations.
Totally incorrect.
For those of you who have been led to believe that vaccines are "completely safe" Below are excerpts from one product information sheet from vaccine manufacturers.

"It is good clinical practice that immunisation should be preceded by a review of the medical history (especially with regard to previous immunisation and possible occurrence of undesirable events) and a clinical examination."
"As with all injectable vaccines, appropriate medical treatment and supervision should always be readily available in case of a rare anaphylactic reaction following the administration of the vaccine"
"The potential risk of apnoea and the need for respiratory monitoring for 48-72h"
"There are no data on the potential of Menitorix to impair fertility
The carcinogenic potential of Menitorix has not been established"
"Menitorix has not been evaluated for genotoxicity"

Perked your interest? Check out others

Another misleading belief which has been encouraged by media and governments, is the belief that anyone who questions the safety of vaccines are "anti-vaxxers" let's consider the many doctors and scientists out there who are questioning vaccine safety

//For those of you who have been led to believe that vaccines are "completely safe"//

Who is claiming that vaccines are completely safe? I've seen a lot of anti-vaxxers claiming that the public health authorities claim vaccines to be 100% safe, but I've never actually seen any public health authorities making that claim. And when you ask anti-vaxxers to provide evidence to back up such claims (or any of their other claims), they tend to clam up. Funny that...

Of course they aren't completely safe. For one thing, they all contain high concentrations of DHMO, and we all know toxic DHMO is:

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

You don't seem to understand the scientific method very well - it's more about quantifying the level of uncertainty than it is about guaranteeing certainty, or at least it is in chemistry and physics. I assume it's the same in biology.

The question isn't whether or not they are completely safe, because that is impossible to guarantee. The question is whether or not they are safer than the diseases they prevent. And if you really, truly believe that, say, a polio epidemic would be safer than polio vaccination, then by all means share your compelling data with us and public health officials.

//let's consider the many doctors and scientists out there who are questioning vaccine safety//

Sure, why not? Although I do hope you're not referring to Andrew Wakefield; he is a con man who has been struck off the register for cooking the books, so he has no right to use those titles anymore.

As regards your 'many': I don't accept as 'many' valid quantitative data. How many, exactly? Preferably expressed as a percentage or ratio.

The freedom of choice argument, is more a freedom to impose onto others. I have no problem if simply people that do not wish to choose vaccination were "cocooned in a vacuum" with no possibility of adversely affecting others. It is not the case, their free choice impinges on my freedom not to be adversly affected in some way by their choice, something I cannot tolerate.

A similar "freedom of choice" argument is put forward by the tobacco industry with their smokers rights rubbish. All the diseases associated with smoking are non communicable, lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease etc. On the surface the right to smoke seems a reasonable free choice, but is it? Its not a free choice when it is imposed on others through passive smoking. As non smoker I strongly object to being subjected to passive smoke. Not long ago I had the experience at a bus stop where a smoker sat beside me with a fag and allowed his crap to go all over me. I objected, it led to an argument, the bloke through out the free choice argument, and a whole lot more rubbish as well, what an A hole was he, when the bus arrived he stamped his fag out on the ground, for someone else to clean up, just like all good smokers do. He didn't care that he was well within four meters of the stop, and breaking the law anyway.

Dear Paul,

From someone like you who suffered such a disgusting experience, I would expect even more sensitivity.

Placing unacceptable substances into the air that you breath is bad enough - how more so puncturing your skin and inserting unacceptable substances directly into your bloodstream!

On the scale of abusing one's intimacy and integrity, I find this even one notch worse than inserting unacceptable objects into another's anus or vagina.

Note that by "unacceptable" I don't necessary mean unhealthy: the only relevant point is that, for whatever reason, the substance is unacceptable to the person upon whom it is forced, just as a woman does not have to provide an explanation for her refusal to have sex.

Unlike the case of the smoker, nobody can hurt you by not vaccinating themselves because inaction is the default. Germs and viruses are part of the environment - you can blame them if you like, but not other people who have done nothing to hurt you.

Yuyutsu, I understand where you are coming from, with 'freedom of choice' and as a general principle I agree with you. My concern is where ones free choice impinges to the detriment on others rights. There has to be some balance, as with smoking. With vaccination there is a strong and compelling argument that those who choose not to vaccinate their children are putting at risk those who do so. Plus, like the smokers, those not vaccinated put a larger financial and resource burden on the rest through the medical system.
If you are not vaccinated, say for polio, and you contract the disease, has your free choice negated your right to treatment?

With children and choice, it is others making the choice on their behalf, be it the parents, but still they are a third party making a choice for someone else. In your view is there a point where the rest of society through the state has a right to impose a restriction, say on parents, for the purpose of the common good? I do see it as dangerous ground when abused by the state, but that is a matter of trust by society of the state.

Dear Paul,

«If you are not vaccinated, say for polio, and you contract the disease, has your free choice negated your right to treatment?»

Absolutely. Nobody is morally obliged to treat you (for polio) in the first place, nobody owes it to you. Nevertheless, treatment has been offered in good faith and so long as you are informed well in advance of the changes, the one who made the offer may also withdraw it, or in our case, make it conditional.

Now with children, while the difference is subtle, it would not be correct for a parent to make choices on their behalf - rather, what a parent ought to do is to REPRESENT their child as best they can.

Once a child can speak for themselves and express their wishes coherently, they must be listened to (and forget about this arbitrary nonsensical formal age of 18) - until then, parents should do their best to guess what the child would have said had they been able to.

Since it is my spiritual belief that children choose to be born to their parents, these parents are the most likely people to represent their wishes correctly. Sure, the child could change their mind at any stage, but as it's nearly impossible to obtain evidence for that, our working assumption should be that the parents continue to represent their child (however, this assumption can be challenged if the parents are split over an issue, or obviously if the child him/herself challenges it).

In any case, what should never happen is for a child to be left without authentic representation. Just because someone is labelled "minor" does not mean that others can do whatever they like to him/her.

«In your view is there a point where the rest of society through the state has a right to impose a restriction, say on parents, for the purpose of the common good?»

Yes, it is fair to restrict offensive actions AGAINST the common good.
It is however improper to impose actions FOR the common good.

Dear Cossomby,

Whether a person visiting a nursing home is vaccinated or not is not as much of an issue. Both vaccinated and un-vaccinated people end up getting influenza at pretty similar rates. It is the mortality rate which is different, particularly in the elderly and the very young.

For children under 6 months who passed away due to the flu or pneumonia each year in the States 74% are unvaccinated. The vaccinated cohort of infants in the population is around 50%.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/878093

For the elderly the rates triple;

“When influenza was occurring in the community (1979 to 1980 and 1980 to 1981), however, the risk of death from pneumonia in the unvaccinated group was threefold higher than in the vaccinated group (60% vs 18% and 73% vs 25%, respectively).”
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/607562

In the case of the flu vaccines are not effective in halting infection rates but make a substantial difference to the chances of dying from it.