2012/21: Should Australian parents be compelled to have their children vaccinated?
What they said...
'It is ... true that serious side-effects can happen, but they are rare, occurring in only about one in one million vaccinations'
Sir Gustav Nossal, an Australian research biologist specialising in immunology
'Twenty-seven years ago, my cousin was seriously brain-damaged after receiving the whooping cough jab'
Kate Figes, in an opinion piece published in The Guardian
The issue at a glance
On November 29, 2012, it was reported that the Family Court had ruled that the 8-year-old daughter of a divorced couple was to receive a complete course of vaccinations. The ruling was made against the objections of the mother who had wanted her daughter to be treated exclusively with homeopathic preparations.
The father told the court he was concerned about his daughter's health and that of the unborn child he was expecting with his new wife.
Justice Victoria Bennett said testimony from a senior Royal Children's Hospital paediatrician indicated that there was insufficient evidence to prove the efficacy of homeopathic vaccinations. The parents must now ensure that the girl receives all conventional vaccinations recommended for her age now and in the future.
Some opponents of the mass vaccination of children have viewed this case as indicative of the desire on the part of state and federal governments to compel parents to vaccinate their children.
Background information
Note: much of the following information is abbreviated from the Wikipedia entry titled 'Vaccination'. The full text of this entry can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination
Vaccination is the administration of antigenic material (a vaccine) to stimulate an individual's immune system to develop adaptive immunity to a pathogen (disease-causing agent).
Vaccines can prevent or reduce the severity of diseases that result from infection. The effectiveness of vaccination has been widely studied and verified; for example, the influenza vaccine, the HPV vaccine, and the chicken pox vaccine have all been shown to work extremely well in guarding against infection.
Vaccination is the most effective method of preventing infectious diseases; widespread immunity due to vaccination is largely responsible for the worldwide eradication of smallpox and the restriction of diseases such as polio, measles, and tetanus from much of the world.
The active agent of a vaccine may be forms of the causative pathogens, or purified components of the pathogen that have been left intact but inactivated (non-infective) or attenuated (treated so that their capacity to infect has been reduced).
Exposure to non-harmful variants of disease-causing agents stimulates the body's immune response, so that when harmful disease-causing agents are encountered the body will be able to combat them.
This process of artificially inducing immunity, in an effort to protect against infectious disease, works by 'priming' the immune system with an 'immunogen', that is, a substance that is able to provoke an adaptive immune response. Stimulating immune responses with an infectious agent is known as immunisation.
Adjuvants and preservatives
Vaccines (the immune-boosting cocktail injected into the subject) typically contain one or more adjuvants, used to boost the immune response. Tetanus toxoid, for instance, is usually adsorbed onto alum. This presents the antigen in such a way as to produce a greater action than the simple tetanus toxoid suspended in water. People who get an excessive reaction to adsorbed tetanus toxoid may be given the simple vaccine when time for a booster occurs.
In the preparation for the 1990 Gulf campaign, Pertussis vaccine was used as an adjuvant for Anthrax vaccine. This produces a more rapid immune response than giving only the Anthrax, which is of some benefit if exposure might be imminent.
Vaccines may also contain preservatives to prevent contamination with bacteria or fungi. Until recent years, the preservative thiomersal was used in many vaccines that did not contain live virus. As of 2005, the only childhood vaccine in the United States that contains thiomersal in greater than trace amounts is the influenza vaccine, which is currently recommended only for children with certain risk factors.
Preservatives may be used at various stages in the production of vaccines, and sophisticated methods of measurement might detect traces of them in the finished product.
Accusations of harm from vaccinations
Allegations of vaccine injuries in recent decades have appeared in litigation in the United States. Some families have won substantial awards from sympathetic juries, even though most public health officials have said that the claims of injuries were unfounded. In response, several vaccine makers stopped production, which the United States government believed could be a threat to public health, so laws were passed to shield makers from liabilities stemming from vaccine injury claims.
One of the most noteworthy allegations of vaccine-induced injury is the MMR vaccine controversy. A fraudulent 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield, originally published in The Lancet, presented supposed evidence that the MMR Vaccine (an immunization against measles, mumps and rubella that is typically first administered to children before their first birthday) was linked to the onset of autism spectrum disorders. The article was partially retracted in 2004 by Wakefield's co-authors, and was fully retracted by The Lancet in 2010.
Following the initial claims in 1998, multiple large epidemiological studies were undertaken. Reviews of Wakefield's evidence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences, the United Kingdom National Health Service, and the Cochrane Library all found no link between the vaccine and autism. While the Cochrane review expressed a need for improved design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, it concluded that the evidence of the safety and effectiveness of MMR in the prevention of diseases that still carry a heavy burden of disease and mortality justifies its global use, and that the lack of confidence in the vaccine has damaged public health. A special court convened in the United States to review claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program rejected compensation claims from parents of autistic children.
The claims in Wakefield's 1998 The Lancet article were widely reported; vaccination rates in the United Kingdom and Ireland dropped sharply, which was followed by a significantly increased incidence of measles and mumps, resulting in deaths and severe and permanent injuries. Physicians, medical journals, and editors have described Wakefield's actions as fraudulent and tied them to epidemics and deaths, and a 2011 journal article described the vaccine-autism connection as 'the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years'.
Internet information
On August 13, 2003, the British newspaper, The Guardian, published an opinion piece by Kate Figes titled 'A Shot in the Dark'. The piece is in part a supportive review of Mary Alexander's 'Calling the Shots: Childhood Vaccinations' which details its author's reservations about the mass immunisation of children. Figes article also outlines her own reservations about the practice.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/aug/13/familyandrelationships.medicineandhealth
The Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) is a lobby group which runs an Internet site essentially opposing the practice of vaccinating children en masse. The site claims neutrality on the issue; however, this has been disputed. There are those who claim that the name of the Network is misleading as it is essentially an anti-vaccination network.
The AVN's Internet site can be accessed at http://avn.org.au/
In December, 2009, the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance published a factsheet titled 'Homoeopathy and vaccination'. The information sheet reveals the limitations and lack of research regarding homeopathic treatments.
The full text of this information sheet can be found at http://www.ncirs.edu.au/immunisation/fact-sheets/homeopathy-vaccination-fact-sheet.pdf
'Elements of Health' is an Australian homeopathy Internet site run by Melanie and Daniel Creedy.
The site includes a lengthy account of how homeopathic remedies might be used to supplement or replace standard vaccinations.
This material can be found at http://www.elementsofhealth.com.au/uploads/ImmunisationProgramInfo.pdf
On September 18, 2012, Peggy Emch posted an entry on her parenting blog, The Primal Parent, titled 'Unvaccinated Kids Put Vaccinated Kids at Risk? Not So Fast!' The piece claims that unvaccinated children do not place others at risk of contracting diseases. The full text of the article can be found at http://theprimalparent.com/2012/09/18/unvaccinated-kids-put-vaccinated-kids-at-risk-not-so-fast/
On October 5, 2012, The Conversation published an opinion piece titled 'No, you're not entitled to your opinion' by Patrick Stokes, a lecturer in Philosophy at Deakin University.
The piece argues that some opinions are far more credible than others and thus entitled to far greater weight. The principal example Stokes gives is the opinions of the anti-vaccination lobby which Stokes argues have been comprehensively discredited by wide-ranging scientific research.
The full text of this article can be found at http://theconversation.edu.au/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978
On November 25, 2012, The Courier Mail published an opinion piece titled 'Science is clear - vaccinate children' written by Sir Gustav Nossal, an Australian research biologist specialising in immunology. The piece argues that the risks associated with immunisation are generally very small and that the benefits for both the individual and the community are great.
The full text can be accessed at http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/science-is-clear-vaccinate-children-says-research-biologist-sir-gustav-nossal/story-fndo1z0b-1226523794828
On November 26, 2012, The Australian Academy of Science released a publication titled 'The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers'. The purpose of the publication is to allay public fears about vaccinations. The booklet outlines the advantages of vaccination and seeks to explain that many of the apprehensions about vaccinations are misplaced.
Among the questions addressed are: What is immunisation? What is in a vaccine? Who benefits from vaccines? Are vaccines safe? How are vaccines shown to be safe? What does the future hold for vaccination?
The full text of this publication can be accessed at http://www.science.org.au/policy/documents/AAS_Immunisation_FINAL_LR_v3.pdf
On November 27, 2012, The Conversation published an opinion piece titled 'Parents' decisions about vaccination and the art of gentle persuasion' written by Julie Leask, a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney. Leask argues that the most effective way to convince uncertain parents of the value of immunisation is via respectful, gentle persuasion.
The full text of this article can be found at http://theconversation.edu.au/parents-decisions-about-vaccination-and-the-art-of-gentle-persuasion- 9969
On December 19, 2012, The Conversation published a report by Rachel Dunlop, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Technology, Sydney, titled, 'Anti-vaccination network told to change its name or be shut down'. The report details the New South Wales Department of Fair Trading ordering the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) to change its name or risk being shut down. The ruling was made because the AVN's named was deemed to be misleading as it does not indicate that the Network is opposed to immunisation.
The full text of this article can be accessed at http://theconversation.edu.au/anti-vaccination-network-told-to-change-its-name-or-be-shut-down-11368
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.
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.
Further implications
All current research indicates that vaccinations are a highly effective means of protecting children from a large number of diseases. The issue is complicated by the fact that a small number of children have adverse reactions to vaccinations and that for an extremely small sub-set of children these adverse reactions can be serious.
There are a number of alternative medicine groups and parent lobbies that have taken an extreme position on vaccinations, judging, against the weight of scientific evidence, that the risk posed by vaccinations is too great to have children exposed to them. They argue that parents should be able to freely decide whether their children are vaccinated. Some of these groups, such as the Australian Vaccination Network, actively disseminate information seeking to demonstrate the dangers associated with vaccinations.
To this point no Australian government has tried to force parents to immunise their children. There are provisions in all states which indicate that children should have received all age-appropriate vaccinations before they start school; however, parents can be exempted from this obligation if they declare their conscientious objection to vaccinations. The same is true regarding the tax exemptions and child allowances that have been linked to the completion of all recommended childhood vaccination programs. Again parents can avoid these financial penalties if they declare their conscientious objection to vaccinations.
The prevailing view is that education is the best means of convincing parents of the need to have their children vaccinated. Indeed there are those who argue that to attempt to compel parents to have their children immunised would only consolidate opposition to the practice.
The fear that vaccinations will be made compulsory seems to be largely confined to the anti-vaccination groups. It is unclear whether their apparent belief in the likelihood of some legislative means to force their compliance is genuine or merely a way of fostering further opposition to childhood vaccinations.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
The Age: October 17, 2012, page 3, news item by Julia Medew, `Baby vaccine recalled over bacteria fears'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/baby-vaccine-recalled-over-bacteria-fears-20121016-27p35.html
Herald-Sun: November 29, 2012, page 7, news item by van den Berg and O'Connell, `Court orders shots'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/girl-8-to-get-vaccination-shots-after-court-overrules-mum/story-fnat79vb-1226526103657
Herald-Sun: November 27, 2012, page 22, comment by David Penberthy, `Point is, science saves lives'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/immunisation-saves-lives/story-e6frfhqf-1226524477893
The Age: December 3, 2012, page 6, news item by Bridie Smith, `Skeptics confer spoon accolade'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/skeptics-confer-spoon-accolade-20121202-2ap2r.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/family-rues-call-on-whooping-cough-booster-ban/story-e6frg8y6-1226533226786
The Australian: December 10, 2012, page 3, news item (photo) by R Morton, `Family rules call on whooping cough booster ban'.