Right: anti-vaccination organisations list many diseases that they argue can be caused by a vaccine injection.
 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 that families that resist vaccinations not be denied government benefits for their children
1. There are some risks associated with the use of vaccinations
The most common side-effects are at the site at which the injection is given where there can be swelling, redness and a small hard lump. Some children may also experience elevated temperatures after a vaccination.
Some vaccines cause a temporary headache, dizziness, fatigue or loss of appetite. Rarely, a child may experience a severe allergic reaction or a neurological side-effect, such as a seizure.
The MMR vaccination is made up of three different vaccines (measles, mumps and rubella) and these can each cause reactions at different times after the injection.
After six to ten days, the measles vaccine starts to work and may cause a fever, a measles-like rash, and loss of appetite.
Two to three weeks after the injection, the mumps vaccine may cause mumps-like symptoms in some children (fever and swollen glands).
The rubella vaccine may cause a brief rash and possibly a slightly raised temperature, most commonly around 12 to 14 days after the injection, but a rash may also rarely occur up to six weeks later.
Anaphylaxis (an extreme allergic reaction which can result in death if untreated) is a rare but well-recognised adverse event following immunisation with allergic sensitisation occurring to a given vaccine's immunogens or excipients (e.g., preservatives, antibiotics and adjuvants). The incidence of anaphylaxis following any vaccine is estimated to be less than one case per 1 million doses.
Opponents of vaccinations tend to claim that the adverse side-effects of immunisations are greater than research substantiates. Whatever the extent of the risks, opponents claim that no parent should be required to subject his or her child to a medication that may have adverse effects.
2. Parents are legally able to determine the medications their children receive
It has been argued that parents are entitled to determine what medications and medical procedures their minor-aged children receive.
In an advice document produced by the Medical Insurance Group of Australia (MIGA) in April, 2010, it was stated, 'In general, a minor (less than 18 years) requires consent from a parent or guardian before treatment can commence, with the exception of an emergency or where treatment is of a minor nature.'
Vaccinations fall within the territory where parental consent must be given. They are neither an immediately life-saving treatment nor a minor procedure.
Where specific state- or territory-based laws exist (in South Australia, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory) the youngest age at which a child can agree to treatment on his or her own behalf is 14 in New South Wales. In states and territories where no specific law applies the question is determined by common law.
The common law position relating to a minor's competency to consent to treatment was established by the English House of Lords decision in Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112.
That case determined that minors may authorise medical treatment when they are old enough and mature enough to decide for themselves, provided they are capable of understanding what is proposed and of expressing their own wishes. This is commonly referred to as the
Mature Minor or Gillick competent child.
Obviously infants and pre-school-aged children could not be judged competent to determine whether they should be inoculated.
Some critics of the government's proposed withholding of benefits argue that parents should not be financially penalised for taking a decision they are legally entitled to make.
Julie Leask, Associate Professor at the University of Sydney, School of Public Health and the National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance, has stated, 'It amounts to a form of mandatory vaccination for lower income families, but without a no-fault vaccine injury compensation system implemented alongside.'
3. There is general compliance with the vaccination regime
Opponents of taking child benefits from parents who do not vaccinate their children claim this is an unnecessary over-reaction as the vast majority of Australian children are vaccinated.
The Australian Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR) indicates that as of March 31, 2015, among children aged between 12 and 15 months 92.9 per cent were immunised in the Australian Capital Territory, 90.7 per cent were immunised in New South Wales, 90.6 per cent were immunised in Victoria, 91.7 per cent were immunised in Queensland, 90.8 per cent were immunised in South Australia, 91.2 per cent were immunised in Western Australia, 90.1 per cent were immunised in Tasmania, 92.2 per cent were immunised in the Northern Territory, while the overall immunisation rate in this age group across Australia is 91 per cent.
For children aged between 24 and 27 months the Australia-wide immunisation rate is 87.6 per cent; while the Australia-wide immunisation rate for children aged between 60 and 63 months is 92.3 per cent.
A clinical professor in paediatric infectious diseases at the University of Sydney, David Isaacs, has noted that despite the number of vaccine objectors, immunisation rates in Australia were still strong; about 97% of families eligible for family tax benefits choose to vaccinate.
Has also stressed that current compliance rates make the government's new policy unnecessary, 'Immunisation rates are steady, at around 92%, and the number of conscientious objectors decreased slightly in the most recent Australian Childhood Immunisation Register survey, from 1.79% to 1.77%. Morrison himself admitted that 97% of children would currently meet the standard for continuing payments.'
4. Attempting to force parents to vaccinate their children will harden the opposition of those who oppose the measure
It has been suggested that attempting to compel parents who object to vaccinations via financial coercions will only increase their opposition.
A clinical professor in paediatric infectious diseases at the University of Sydney, David Isaacs, has stated, 'My suspicion is all you'll do through this policy is alienate anti-vaxxers more and then you'll have a resentful group of suspicious people less likely to listen to government advice.'
The head of the School of Public Health and Community Medicine at the University of New South Wales, Professor Raina MacIntyre, has stated that the policy was unlikely to change the views of hardcore anti-vaccinators.
Professor McIntyre has stated, 'Bringing in something draconian like this is not a very good public health strategy. There's been a lot of research done on hardcore conscientious objectors and it's very hard to change their views.
Bringing in this kind of draconian measure is likely to run the risk of driving those parents, who at this stage are just uncertain, to being hardcore refusers themselves.
There will be resentment of the perception of coercion. These people pay their taxes like the rest of us. They work, they pay taxes. They have an entitlement to those benefits.'
A similar point was made by Waleed Aly in an opinion piece published in The Age on April 17, 2015. Aly wrote, 'Perhaps you will never convince the hardcore anti-vaxxers who will happily sacrifice some welfare payments for their principles in the rare case it comes to that. But between the hardcore groupings are those who are more sceptical of mass vaccination than irascibly opposed. They're the ones broadly sympathetic with the libertarian or anti-corporate concerns at play, but perhaps unsure about the application of these ideas to vaccination. They're the ones who, with the right handling, might just be persuaded.
But what would someone like that make of this latest piece of political theatre? If you're on the verge of believing this is some form of government control, is anything more likely to tip you over the edge than the government resorting to force? That's the way radical politics works. It gains its strength from the very fact of its mainstream isolation.'
5. Education is a better means of extending compliance
It has been claimed that education is the best means of ensuring that parents have their children vaccinated. It has been suggested that this is the case whether the parents have a conscientious objection because they believe that vaccination is unsafe or whether the parents have failed to have their children vaccinated through neglect or disorganisation.
All groups of parents who have not had their children immunised need to be convinced that their actions are threatening the health of their offspring and other peoples.
In an opinion piece published in The Canberra Times on April 14, 2015, Jenna Price noted that informal education programs that work to shift opinion are the most likely to achieve their ends. She cites an instance where this has occurred. 'Alison Gaylard does it with cups of tea and the occasional glass of wine. She is part of the group which founded the Northern Rivers Vaccination Supporters, six core members who are working in the least vaccinated part of Australia - the area centred on Lismore and Mullumbimby. It's around 50 per cent compliance rate in children aged five and more than half that are official objectors. She and her husband run a small business and have two small daughters who contracted whooping cough in 2012 because the immunity in their area is rock bottom.
Now she and the NRVS group talk each and every day to ordinary parents. They've moved them from being anti to being open, from partial vaccinators to complete. And they've organised the disorganised onto catch-up schedules.'
Similarly, the spokesman for the Australian Medical Association on the Sunshine Coast, Doctor Wayne Herdy has stated, 'Carrots and education, not threats, should be used by governments to improve vaccination rates.'
Dr Herdy has urged the government to bolster rates through education to encourage parents to act.
Professor Peter McIntyre, a paediatrician with the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, has stated in regard to the government's intention to deny child benefits to those parents who do not have their children vaccinated, 'I guess what we'd all like to see though is any decision by parents to vaccinate through a policy like this also underpinned by better information, understanding and appreciation of vaccination and a realisation that it's not a danger to their children.'
Those who argue for education as a means of promoting vaccinations claim it is only a matter of informed common sense. A clinical professor in paediatric infectious diseases at the University of Sydney, David Isaacs, has noted, 'If we really think immunisations are valuable, which they are, and that the vast majority of people are sensible and want their children vaccinated, which they do, why do we then need draconian measures?'