Right: During the 1990 Gulf War, when it was believed that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had and would use biological weapons, American soldiers - and other nations' troops - were vaccinated against anthrax.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against children having to be vaccinated
1. Some parents believe vaccinations are unsafe
Some parents believe that their children's health may be damaged by some of the vaccines with which they are routinely injected. Some of these parents claim that their children became ill after being immunised and they are suspicious that the immunisation may have caused the illness.
Kate Figes, in an opinion piece published in The Guardian on August 13, 2003, claimed, 'My eldest daughter [had] a febrile convulsion when she was 10 months old, late in the evening of the day she received her last triple injection for diphtheria, tetanus and polio.'
Ms Figes also noted other members of her family whom she believed had been adversely affected by vaccinations. She wrote, 'Twenty-seven years ago, my cousin was seriously brain-damaged after receiving the whooping cough jab. He was not alone. Other children were affected, and their parents organised a campaign...Neither of my children has been vaccinated against whooping cough as a result.'
There is also speculation among some parents and lobby groups that a variety of behavioural, psychological and physiological conditions may be attributable to vaccinations.
The lobby group Vaccine Dangers claims on its Internet site, 'Why are so many young children contracting so many unheard of medical syndromes that did not appear in the medical literature 50 or more years ago? [These include] Autism, ADD, ADHD, childhood cancers, and something termed "Shaken Baby Syndrome". The Internet site suggests these conditions 'may be vaccine-related brain damage from multivalent vaccines, especially when no physical trauma presents on the infant's body.'
2. Some parents believe vaccinations are ineffective
There are those who believe that vaccinations are either unnecessary or ineffective. This is the position promoted by the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN). (Despite its name, this organisation is actually opposed to immunisation.)
On its Internet site the AVN states, 'When most parents choose to vaccinate their children, they do so because they have been told that the vaccine will protect their family from infection with whatever diseases they are being vaccinated against. Unfortunately, science shows that this is not necessarily the case as fully-vaccinated individuals still contract diseases they thought they would be protected from while fully-unvaccinated individuals seem to go through epidemics without becoming ill. There is obviously more involved in determining susceptibility to disease then just a person's vaccination status.'
Claims such as these seem to have influenced a significant number of parents. Medicare has indicated that figures from the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register show 26,000 or 1.3 per cent of children were registered as conscientious objectors by March 31, 2010. However, the official conscientious-objector figures are only part of the picture because at least as many parents do not have their children immunised but do not register as conscientious objectors.
Some opponents of vaccinations further believe that vaccines are promoted to secure the profits of large pharmaceutical companies, not because they are of a genuine health benefit. This claim has been made by the lobby group Vaccine Dangers which claims on its Internet site 'There is no issue that the public has been kept in the dark about more than vaccines, the 'sacred cash cow' of modern pharmacology-not medicine.'
3. It is parents' right to determine what is in the best interests of their child
Opponents of immunisation stress that it is a parent's right to decide what is in his or her child's best interests and that there is no legal compulsion in Australia requiring parents to vaccinate their children.
The Australian Vaccination Network's Internet site states, 'The medical community and government health authorities want to ensure that every child, and indeed, every adult, gets each vaccine on offer. But the ultimate decision is and must always remain with us - the child's parents.'
The Network goes on to explain that parents are not legally bound to have their children vaccinated. The Network's Internet site notes, 'In Australia, vaccination is not compulsory. It doesn't matter what your doctor, school principal, mother in law or neighbour say - no school, preschool, childcare centre or playgroup is legally allowed to discriminate against a child because of their vaccination status.'
The Network further notes that so long as parents have signed a form indicating that they have a conscientious objection to vaccination they cannot be denied any tax concessions or child allowances that are currently linked to vaccination.
4. Unvaccinated children pose no serious health risk to other children
There are some parents who argue that the threat supposedly posed by unvaccinated children is exaggerated. According to this line of argument, children who have been vaccinated should be safe from any infection carried by children who have not.
In a letter published by US Today on April 29, 2012, Dana Busson of Doylestown, Ohio, claimed, 'If your child is fully immunized, then theoretically he or she is at no risk. This means that the only risk is to unvaccinated children. It is a parent's right to decide whether the benefits of immunization outweigh the possible negative reactions to a vaccine. Only a parent's love should make that decision. No one should be forced to do anything that he does not believe in. Wake up, parents. If you believe in vaccinations, then do it. If you do not, then don't.
But don't say that an unvaccinated child puts yours at risk. This is a scare tactic to ensure that the pharmaceutical companies keep the money rolling in.'
The same view has been put by Darlene Bernard who, on August 6, 2012, wrote on her blog, Darlene's Musings, 'If vaccines protect people from infectious diseases, then those who are vaccinated should have no concerns whatsoever about being "exposed" to or amongst the unvaccinated. They're vaccinated; they should be "immune". Right?'
5. There are other means of protecting children from communicable diseases
It has been argued that there are other means of protecting children against the diseases for which they are vaccinated.
Firstly there are those who argue that the human immune system is sufficiently powerful to protect against disease without immunisation.
Elizabeth Renter, writing for Natural Society, in an article published on June 26, 2012, claimed, 'The fact is, your immune system is the best fighter against illness and disease, not vaccines.'
It has also been claimed that homeopathic treatments can boost the immune system to help protect against disease without immunisation. One homeopathic practitioner has claimed, 'For families who have...chosen not to vaccinate their children, homeopathy offers an alternative to orthodox vaccination via a program of homeopathic remedies known as 'homeoprophylaxis' (HP), which protects against the same diseases as conventional vaccination without the dangers...
Homeoprophylaxis (HP) is suggested for those parents who have made a firm decision not to immunise their children but would like to employ a safe alternative method of protection and for children who have previously had an adverse reaction to conventional immunisation.'
In addition to homeopathic treatments, there are those who argue that good nutrition, exercise and other factors associated with healthy living are generally sufficient to protect children against the diseases for which they are usually vaccinated.
6. There are methods other than legal compulsion to encourage parents to vaccinate their children
There are a variety of methods other than legal compulsion that can be used to make it more likely that parents will vaccinate their children.
One of the most effective methods is education. Julie Leask of the University of Sydney has argued for the important role played by medical professionals in educating parents about the importance of immunisation. Leask has stated, 'One of the most important times to address this problem is when parents are forming or solidifying their views on vaccination - usually during pregnancy or in the child's first year. At this time, their family doctor or child health nurse has a crucial role in discussing concerns.'
In response to falling immunisation rates, the president of the Australian Medical Association Victoria, Dr Stephen Parnis, has stated, 'It's a matter of real regret and a cause for concern and a marker that we need to educate the community on the importance of vaccinations because these so-called conscientious objections are usually based on fear and misinformation.'
Another method is to impose financial penalties on those parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. The Federal Government introduced changes in July 2012, penalising families that do not vaccinate their children in line with the four-year immunisation schedule. These families will miss out on the Family Tax Benefit Part A payments of $2100 over three years.
Finally, it is possible to make enrolment at school, at least in part, conditional on children being fully vaccinated. There are regulations of this sort in place in most Australian states and territories.
For example, the Tasmanian Public Health Act 1997 includes provisions designed to help prevent children from catching and spreading a number of childhood vaccine preventable diseases. The Act states that a person in charge of a school or child care facility must require a parent or guardian to provide information about a child's immunisations when the child is about to attend that school or facility for the first time.
The diseases covered by these provisions are: chicken pox, diphtheria, haemophilus influenza type b (Hib) infection, hepatitis B, influenza, measles, meningococcal infection, mumps, pertussis (whooping cough), pneumococcal infection, polio, rubella (german measles) and tetanus.
This Act allows a child to attend school if there is a compelling reason why he or she cannot be immunised; however, if a child is not vaccinated, he or she may be excluded from school if there is an outbreak of a vaccine preventable disease at the school or in child care.