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.