Right: medical scientist Sir Gustav Nossal: "When vaccinations against measles, whooping cough, polio, tetanus and diphtheria were introduced in Australia, the incidence of the diseases dropped to, in many cases, virtually zero."
 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 in favour of children having to be vaccinated
1. Vaccination helps to protect children from many life-threatening diseases
There are many potentially life-threatening diseases that children are protected against via immunisation. These include meningitis, pneumonia, hepatitis, chickenpox, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, polio, smallpox and measles.
Sir Gustav Nossal, an Australian research biologist specialising in immunology, has noted, commenting on just one of these diseases, 'Australia had regular epidemics of measles, during which many children died from associated illnesses such as encephalitis and pneumonia. Measles also can cause lifelong disability, including deafness, blindness and mental disability.
When vaccinations against measles, whooping cough, polio, tetanus and diphtheria were introduced in Australia, the incidence of the diseases dropped to, in many cases, virtually zero.'
It has also been noted that by preventing the initial infection, vaccines can prevent long-term complications associated with some chronic diseases, where the pathogen persists in the body after the initial infection has passed. Through this process, some viruses can result in other diseases later in life. For example, encephalitis can be induced by an earlier measles infection, while cirrhosis of the liver can result from hepatitis B or C.
It has further been observed that once a disease has been acquired, vaccines are generally not available which can protect those who have contracted it from subsequent illnesses related to the initial infection. This is why hepatitis B vaccine is administered from birth, and why HPV vaccine is delivered in late childhood or very early adolescence, before the individual is at risk of being exposed to the virus through sexual encounters.
2. Unvaccinated children pose a health risk to others
It has been observed that vaccines not only protect the individual, they also serve to protect the entire community. It has been argued that once vaccination levels are sufficiently high, they offer protection not only for the majority of children who are immunised but for the small number who are not. This occurs because there are so few incidents of the disease that the chances of contracting it, even for the unimmunised, are very low. This is referred to as 'herd immunity'. The term was explained in a publication released by the Australian Academy of Science in November, 2012 'Herd immunity occurs when a significant proportion of individuals within a population are protected against a disease through immunisation. This situation offers indirect protection for people who are still susceptible to the disease, by making it less likely that they will come into contact with someone who is carrying the pathogen.' Herd immunity can be particularly valuable for infants and others too young to have yet received a particular vaccination.
Sir Gustav Nossal, an Australian research biologist specialising in immunology, has explained the operation of the loss of herd immunity which occurs when immunisation rates fall. Nossal has stated, 'The anti-vaccination lobby played a major role in the outbreak of measles, mumps and rubella in the UK. Before then ... Britain was on the very threshold of eradicating measles from the UK.
Then along came one researcher with a totally fallacious claim that the vaccine causes autism...the anti-vaccination lobby startled parents so much the vaccination rate, which was up to 93 per cent, plummeted to 60-70 per cent in different parts of the UK.
What was the end result? There were outbreaks of all three diseases which are not yet under control. This is a tragedy triggered by ignorance.'
Similarly, the incidence of whooping cough has increased in Australia as a result of a decline in immunisation. There have been more than 7000 cases in the first three months of 2012. Although 92 per cent of babies have been immunised against whooping cough, Professor Ian Frazer, the head of the Diamantina Institute, has explained that the disease spreads more rapidly when the rate of immunisation falls below 95 per cent.
3. The claims made about the dangers associated with vaccinations are exaggerated or inaccurate
It has been claimed that assertions made about the ill-effects of vaccinations are generally either wrong or exaggerated.
Sir Gustav Nossal, an Australian research biologist specialising in immunology, has stated, 'It is ... true that serious side effects happen but they are rare, occurring in only about one in one million vaccinations.'
A related point was made in a publication released by the Australian Academy of Science in November, 2012. The publication states, 'The great majority of side effects that follow vaccination are minor and short-lived. The most common side effects for all vaccine types are "local" reactions at the injection site, such as redness or swelling, which occur within hours and are clearly caused by the vaccine. More general or "systemic" reactions, such as fever or tiredness, can also occur after vaccination, but careful studies have shown that they are much less common than local reactions.'
It has also been noted that common childhood illnesses are sometimes inaccurately attributed to vaccinations. The same Australian Academy of Science report also observed, 'Symptoms such as fever, rashes, irritability and nasal snuffles are common, especially among children. Consequently, it can be difficult to determine how many of these reactions are caused by a vaccine when the "background rate" (how often it occurs anyway) in the same age group is unknown. In some cases, these kinds of reactions may be caused by the vaccine. But in other situations, the symptoms may be unrelated, occurring by chance at the same time as the vaccination.'
It has further been observed that some of the more dramatic conditions claimed by critics to be the result of vaccinations are simply not. One notorious such instance is the inaccurate linking of autism with MMR vaccinations. Sir Gustav Nossal has noted, 'It turns out the incidence of autism in people who have had the MMR vaccine is identical to that of people who have not had it... It took nine independent studies over several years to dispel public doubt and counter the baseless but fearful assertions being peddled as a result of this single, fraudulent paper by the anti-vaccination lobby.'
4. Alternative treatments have not been proved adequate
There has been no rigorously tested research to demonstrate the safety or effectiveness of homoeopathic preparations, or other complementary and alternative therapies, to provide protection against childhood infectious diseases.
Although homoeopathic preparations and schedules have been developed claiming to prevent childhood infectious diseases such as pertussis (whooping cough), tetanus, diphtheria, measles, mumps and rubella (German measles), many homoeopaths appear to support the need for children to be vaccinated conventionally.
Both the British Homoeopathic Association and the Australian Register of Homoeopaths recommend that people should receive conventional immunisations unless a medical condition precludes this. These recommendations have been made because no research can be found to demonstrate the effectiveness of homoeopathic preparations for prevention or treatment of vaccine-preventable diseases.
Not only has the effectiveness of alternative treatments never been established, their safety is also open to question.
Conventional medicines such as standard vaccines are thoroughly scrutinised, tested, evaluated and followed up for their safety. Homoeopathic preparations are not subjected to the same level of attention.
5. The preferences of a parent should not take precedence over the health of a child
It has been argued that a parent's views regarding immunisation should not be allowed to endanger their children.
This view has been put by the vice-president of Liberty Victoria, Jamie Gardiner, who has claimed that a parent's personal beliefs against vaccination should not override scientific evidence demonstrating it was in their child's best interests.
Mr Gardiner has stated, 'It's safe and desirable not only for the child but for the children they come into contact with. A child has a right to the best available healthcare.'
It is generally recognised in common law that one of the fundamental duties of being a parent is the maintenance and protection of a child, with the duty also including providing consent to medical treatment on behalf of the child when necessary.
This duty of parental responsibility is enshrined in the statutory provisions of criminal law in all Australian jurisdictions.
The power of parents to consent, or to refuse medical treatment, can only be exercised in the child's best interests, and the High Court has determined that in instances where there exists the parental power to consent to treatment, there are two principles which will be in operation (as outlined by the High Court in Marion's Case):
'First, the subjective consent of a parent, in the sense of a parent speaking for the child, is ordinarily indispensible.... Secondly, the overriding criterion to be applied in the exercise of parental authority on behalf of a child is the welfare of the child objectively assessed.'
Supporters of compulsory immunisation argue that it can be objectively demonstrated that vaccination is in the best interests of both the child and the large community and thus parental preferences should not be allowed to interfere with the child receiving appropriate treatment.
6. The Australian government is considering a compensation scheme for those who suffer ill effects from vaccinations
In July 2011, the then federal Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, indicated that the government was considering introducing compensation for those suffering serious complications as a result of vaccinations.
There is already a 'no fault' vaccination compensation scheme operating in New Zealand. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) has supported such a scheme claiming it was 'entirely just and reasonable' that Government compensate those harmed by vaccinations because immunisations benefited the broader society as well as the individual.
The RACP recommendation is part of a Position Statement on immunisations released by the College's Paediatrics and Child Health Division in October 2012, in which it urges paediatricians and other physicians publicly to rebut erroneous claims about the dangers of vaccinations.
The compensation scheme has been suggested as a way of reassuring parents that in the very rare event of their children suffering serious ill-effects as a result of immunisation there would be financial compensation available.