Slashdot Mirror
Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California
mpicpp sends the latest news on California legislation that would eliminate exemptions for vaccinating school children. A bill that would require nearly all children in California to be vaccinated by eliminating "personal belief" exemptions advanced through the State Legislature on Wednesday, though it still has several hurdles to clear. If approved, California would become one of only three states that require all parents to vaccinate their children as a condition of going to school, unless there is a medical reason not to do so. Under the bill, introduced after a measles outbreak that began at Disneyland, parents who refuse vaccines for philosophical or religious reasons would have to educate their children at home. The legislation prompted a roiling debate in Sacramento, and last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools. Last Wednesday, the legislation stalled in the Senate Education Committee as lawmakers said they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling. This Wednesday, however, the bill passed that committee after its authors tweaked it, adding amendments that would expand the definition of home schooling to allow multiple families to join together to teach their children or participate in independent study programs run by public school systems.
How dare you tell me that I have to actually take care of my kid! It's my kid, and my choice not to feed it!
What a bunch of dummies. We require that they send their kids to school in shoes, some sort of shirt type thing, and pants too. Oh noes, we are discriminating against the nudists! Wah! Now we plan to require that be vaccinated against certain preventable diseases and not bring down herd immunity to levels where disease can spread. Oh noes, we are discriminating against the stupid! Wah! Bunch of idiots. If you think your kid is going to "catch autism" from an immunization I guess you have to pass your idiocy on to your kid through home schooling. Seems fair. Oh, BTW, keep them out of sports leagues because they better not get my kids sick...
The legislation prompted a roiling debate in Sacramento, and last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools
For the moment let's set aside fair vs unfair, and just take their claim at face value. This action is unfair for the purpose of argument.
That said... I fail to see what exactly their problem or complaint actually is.
This small group of people are arguing for the legal right to unfairly engage in germ warfare while attempting to murder other school children and even some adults. The argument is this is perfectly acceptable and should be a protected right.
So with that, these people clearly have NO problems with unfair choices being forced on everyone else, as that is the legal right they are demanding.
So why complain when they get their wish, and we "unfairly" shut their children out of school?
If they have no moral or even legal issues with (their) unfair choices being forced on people (us), why do they complain why the court states there is no moral or legal issues with (our) unfair choices being forced on people (them)?
It has already been established that unfairly infecting other children at school is not only acceptable but should be a legal right, so clearly it is also both acceptable and should be a legal right to unfairly kick their children out of school, exactly as these parents are marching at the capitol to demand.
Obviously the correct answer is that the hypocrisy is strong in these people - it just still somehow amazes me to this day such people don't realize that hypocrites are exactly what they are being.
I hate to say it, but maybe this is for the best. Unfortunately, what may be needed to kill the anti-vaxxer mindset once and for all is for a whole classroom of unvaccinated children to come down with measles or polio or smallpox or whooping cough, and for several of them to die.
Horrible? Yes, but the parents who have bought into this insanity are endangering everyone, not just their own children. Some of these people are quite literally proclaiming that vaccines have never worked, and that it is only improvements in hygiene that have resulted in the elimination of most deadly childhood diseases. A good cold dash of reality is the only cure. It is just a damned shame that some innocent kids will have to pay the price.
I hate that we have to legislate instead of educate people about vaccinations. Pretty sad that people listen more to Jenny McCarthy than they do medical doctors. I suppose given that, this legislation is a necessary evil.
Because everyone living in California can afford to quit their job and spend all day teaching their children. Oh, and they all understand fractions and have training in how to educate children in such concepts.
Yes, you should be involved in your child's education. No, you don't have to quit your job or be a full time educator to do so.
I'm firmly in the "what the hell is wrong with you anti-vaxxers?!" camp, and almost any of us here could rattle off a laundry list of the ways that these parents are just plain wrong, but this bill would more or less enforce a quarantine for at-risk children, depriving them of access to a state-provided resource (education) that they are entitled to, for reasons that are unrelated to the resource being offered (i.e. the parents don't have a problem with public schooling). I'm tempted to suggest that the "fair" thing to do would be to give the family a refund on the school district's share of their taxes if they've been cut off from that resource, but I also don't like the idea of giving tax breaks for engaging in idiocy.
As I said, I'm conflicted. I agree that steps need to be taken to disincentivize anti-vaxxing. I like that some doctors are refusing to accept patients who aren't vaccinated, but I'd like to see the deterrents get into the public space somewhere. I'm just not convinced that this is the way to do it.
Vaccines are great. I won't dispute that. My children are vaccinated, but I have followed a different schedule than the one recommended and I reserve the right to refuse specific vaccines (Because who really needs Varicella vaccination if you were already infected as a child? It's also hardly ever fatal for that matter).
It is up to parents to decide what is right for their own child with regard to medical decisions. Medical decisions are difficult and not always cut and dry. I refuse to give up the right of anyone deciding what is appropriate for their child in this regard, because medical decisions live with you forever.
So if a parent doesn't want to have their child vaccinated, that's a-okay with me. My children are vaccinated, so I've done everything that I personally can do to protect them. I can't protect them from everything and I don't expect other parents to protect my children either. I can only do what I can, and the rest is up to chance in the end.
Giving up freedom because of fear is not the answer. Mandating the "correct" decision is often wrong. Better instead to push education and appropriate information rather than to force others to make the decision you want them to.
I'm one of those who is allergic to eggs and have to be very careful about vaccines, so you may be putting me at danger too.
Many vaccines have egg protein in them, and so do flu shots. Over the years I have managed to get most vaccines, but it's hard. On paper there are egg-free vaccines and it's easy to google up an article announcing the exciting new development of an egg-free vaccine for xxx. But in real life they are expensive, have short shelf lives, a very limited market, and nobody keeps records about where I might find some. Which means they're pretty much not available outside of a major metropolis, and even then it takes luck and a lot of phone calls.
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
> Last Wednesday, the legislation stalled in the Senate Education Committee as lawmakers said they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling.
Or even worse, that they found that they liked it. The problem with making something a condition of participating in a government institution is the risk that significant numbers will discover they do fine without it.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I'm sure the SWAT team will find you an amusing training exercise.
> they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling.
With the piss poor job schools have been doing lately, that might not be a bad thing for parents to bond and spend more time with their chilldren's investment success for their future.
Nah, it's easier to pass the job off to someone else who doesn't give a crap about your child's future and is only doing it for the money.
For the money?!?
WUT?
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
No tax refund for you if you don't buy a government-approved insurance policy.
The same thing that has always gone on. Kids have sex, and the HPV vaccine means that they are protected from a pretty nasty cancer.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Because everyone living in California can afford to quit their job and spend all day teaching their children. Oh, and they all understand fractions and have training in how to educate children in such concepts.
Yes, you should be involved in your child's education. No, you don't have to quit your job or be a full time educator to do so.
Having homeschooled one college honor student from birth though high school I'd like to weigh in...
Homeschooling does NOT require any special training or education in education. If you can read and do simple math, all you need is a determination. The hard part is teaching kids to read and despite how daunting that may sound to a new parent, it's really simple. Learn your letters, learn their sounds, then start making words. It just takes repetition and if you keep at it with the kids, reading comes easy once they are old enough. Teaching kids to write is not hard, nor is math. These days there are curriculums that you can buy that will have everything you need which are turn key, just follow the schedule they give you. Some come as video with teachers doing the teaching while your kid watches. It can be as easy or as involved as you want it to be as a parent.
Neither my wife or I have any formal training in education (I'm an electrical engineer, she has 2 years of college) and we are 2 years from being totally done with our two kids. Both kids will get a better education than the public schools would have provided and our oldest (who was our problem student in the school) is an honor student at a local college working on a STEM degree. If we can do this, almost anybody can, trust me.
That's not to say homeschooling is easy all the time, I'm saying that it doesn't take special education or training to be effective. But it does take dedication by the parents to make it work. It can be hard work to push kids to do their school work. It's a daily grind that wears you down and it takes year after year. When you are in the mist of it, it can be frustrating not to see the daily progress for all the effort put in. However, your kids will get a better education than the public school could ever hope to provide. The teacher to student ratio is better, you know your kids better than any other adult and they will benefit from all of these things, while learning to teach themselves, a skill that will benefit them for a lifetime.
For my wife and I the benefits of homeschooling where worth more than she could ever add to our standard of living so she stayed home with the kids. Your mileage may vary of course, but the benefits to children of having a parent at home with them FAR outweigh the benefits of that second income to us. Our kids will be much better off for it.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Yeah, because no-one every dies from measels. The person who dies every 4 minutes from measels doesn't count.
Source:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre...
145,700 deaths from measels in 2013, one every 3 minutes and 45 seconds.
in 1980, before mass vaccinations it was killing 2.6 million per year
You might want to read about what the FDA says about the mercury concentration in vaccines. I suspect kids may get more mercury in their fish sticks (fish fingers) than in their vaccines.
It ends at the point that you force someone else to have a medical procedure for your benefit.
They aren't forced to have a medical procedure. They just are forced to stay the hell away from the people they put at risk by electing not to have the procedure. They retain their choice but that choice absolutely should have consequences because it can literally have life and death stakes. If they want to elect to live life as a hermit then they should retain that choice.
Anti-vaxxers are ignorant idiots but you do not cure ignorance or stupidity by making it illegal (tempting though that is)...you cure it through education.
You cure ignorance by education if and only if the other party is willing to learn. You cannot cure stupidity through any amount of education.
However the ironic thing about this law is that it encourages these idiots to home school their kids where they will be able to propagate their ignorance to the next generation.
I think the horse is already gone from that barn and has run a long way down the road.
The moment you force people to have medical procedure you are on a very slippery slope.
Spare me. There is no slippery slope here. We are talking about extraordinarily safe vaccines which are 100% optional. They can choose not to vaccinate their children, just not without consequence. They do not get the right to endanger others needlessly because they want to hold a ridiculous opinion not supported by scientific fact.
That is fine, then give me the money that would otherwise be given to the school so I can pay for another option.
No. Your choice, your problem. You don't get special treatment on taxes because you want to engage in demonstrably dangerous behavior.
So should it be illegal to go out in public if you have a cold?
It's not illegal to go out in public with measles. It's just a really dumb idea. Every physician I know will instruct someone with the measles to stay home in most cases because it is ludicrously infectious. Furthermore "a cold" describes a huge number of pathogens whereas measles is one specific germ. If there were a safe and effective vaccine for more serious strains of "colds" then I would support requiring a vaccine if our medical community determined it to be a good idea.
A better law to fix this problem would be to allow kids to consent to having vaccinations without parental knowledge.
Children are not considered mentally competent to make such decisions. How many toddlers do you know who would volunteer to get a shot?
As it is this law will encourage anti-vaxxers to home school and spread their ignorance to the next generation.
They are already doing that AND endangering others in the process.
It also means that there is no need to force anyone to undergo a medical procedure which they do not want.
Nobody is being forced to get any vaccine. They can choose not to participate and there should be consequences for that. I have freedom of speech as a guaranteed right but that right has limits and it does not mean I will not suffer consequences for something I say. Same with the right to choose not to vaccinate. They can do it but that doesn't mean they should be able to endanger others without consequence.
In other words, you're saying that everyone should be distrusted, except for those who already agree with you. Interesting how the new legislation being considered might satisfy this point of view: by having anti vaccination people all in the same schools their views will be perpetuated no matter what the rest of the people say.
Recently a mother of 7 in Australia was interviewed after all of her children caught whooping cough. She said that after filtering out all mainstream media and medical advice it made sense to not vaccinate, which was something she ended up regretting. Without perfect quarantine and with more kids in vaccine-optional schools, it will be interesting to find the long term effects of this opting-out and how the broad accusations of government and pharma corruption will fit with the predictable increase in case of avoidable disease.
If I, and other males, can be made to go fight and die at high risk, against my wishes, why can't EVERYONE be made to take a low risk shot?
The benefit of the shots to society is arguably FAR higher and the risk FAR lower than military service.
And by the way, I'm in favor of compulsory military service, for myself and everyone else. Just as I'm in favor of compulsory vaccination, for myself and everyone else (medical exceptions allowed for both.)
--PM
Hello,
While I'm in favor of compulsory vaccination for everyone except medical exceptions, I'm not so sure we can lay whooping cough epidemics at the door of the anti-vaxxers. It seems that the vaccine is not completely effective against currently circulating strains of whooping cough.
I'm in favor of research dollars being dedicated forthwith to improve the vaccine. I have a friend whose child, too young to be vaccinated, was killed by whooping cough.
--PeterM
Take it as you will, but second hand smoke might not be the best example. I'm not a huge fan of Penn Gillette, but at the least I thought this was interesting if the facts are accurate - Penn & Teller - Bullshit :: Second Hand Smoke. It feels to have at least a touch of truthiness to it if you can handle Penn for 15 straight minutes (while I appreciate some of the things he has to say, he's not my cup of tea personality wise).
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
They're only "completely effective" when so thoroughly and effectively used that the bacteria or virus is completely eliminated. That's why smallpox is believed eradicated, there haven't been any new cases since 1978. Polio has repeatedly been close to eradication, but has failed in countries like Nigeria and Pakistan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
The vaccine was tied in local political and religious leader's speeches to harassment of Islam, with claims that the vaccine was designed to sterilize them. By the time the vaccine supply could be examined and verified as untainted by local leaders, it was expired and no longer safe to use. This is why polio remains an infectious disease: according to the "Global Polio Eradication Initiative", Nigeria and Pakistan have the last major reservoirs of existing polio cases, and until it's cleared out of those nations, all other nations are at risk and have to spend their limited medical and educational resources on annual vaccination drives to prevent a resurgence, much like that from Pakistan in 2013. And immunization is _banned_ by Islamic militants in parts of Pakistan. And innocent refugees from the fighting there remain a dangerous vector for polio to be brought to other communities.
Politically, I'd be hard pressed to invent a more dangerous mix of medical issues, religion, and politics if Israel hadn't already been caught forcing refugee women to accept birth control shots, and some of the women injected hadn't thought they were flue vaccines.
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
Note especially that it was the government of _Israel_ doing this, and Israel is an icon of Western civilization and religious strife for Muslim countries. It lent credence to the most paranoid concerns of the Islamic who've been banning immunization. I admit that it quite incensed me at the time because it discredited the genuine immunization efforts of WHO and helped waste the polio eradication effort in Nigeria.