Of course No, we not only have to care about our own children, we do have a collective responsibility for all children who might run a risk to become sick, Carl
DEpends; in an epidemic the cost benefit could pay off, however when one have 11 antigens in single vaccine, I would think before submitting a baby immune system to this onslaught.
The only justification for such ideas are industry profits andnothing else, in nature one is note expeosed to 11 pathogens at one (unless one take abth in Tiete river in são Paulo, and no one in right mind would put a baby in this water.
In the past , common Infectious diseases were the common causes of mortality in children leading to the low life span in adults . The revolution came in the form of vaccines , which saved many lives in children & increased the life span of adults . Many young parents are unaware of this & object to vaccines without knowing the facts . They need to be informed about the value of vaccines , as many of the diseases , such as polio , measles & diphtheria are still lurking & can come back in an explosive manner .
As a parent, you may not like seeing your baby or child being given an injection. However, vaccination will help protect them against a range of serious and potentially fatal diseases.
There are 3 good reasons to have your child vaccinated:
(1) vaccinations are quick, safe and extremely effective
(2) once your child has been vaccinated against a disease, their body can fight it off better
(3) if a child isn't vaccinated, they're at higher risk of catching – and becoming very ill from – the illness
There will always be some children who are unavoidably unprotected because:
(1) they can't be vaccinated for medical reasons
(2) they're too young to be vaccinated
(3) they can't get to the vaccine clinics
the vaccine doesn't work (although this is rare)
However, if more parents have their children vaccinated, then more children in the community will be protected against an illness.
Strictly by how I define rights, yes. https://politicoid.us/rights/
A right is voluntarily maintained, and the most fundamental right that exists is the right to inaction. That being said, a parent has an obligation to do what is in the best interest of the child, and usually that means vaccinating them.
However, there are issues with certain vaccines that bring into question whether vaccinating, while apparently quite beneficial to the individual, would be beneficial to society as a whole. Preprint Studying the Efficacy and Perception of Whooping Cough Vaccines
I'm a little concerned that these answers are either simple yes or no answers, or speak only of duty. While my answer does mention the obligation of a parent to do what is in the best interest of the child, that discussion is separate from whether a parent has a right to do something, or in this case, not do something.
We have measles outbreak in Georgia. 312 people were reported to have measles from 1 January this year. In 56% of cases diagnosed with measles most of the people are 20-40 years.
The fact is that in 90-ies and in the early 2000-ies immunization programme was failed in the Post-Soviet countries. People in this age group who got measles were not vaccinated.
I strongly advised all the parents to please vaccinate their children. Some vaccines are available free of cost and it is a social responsibility for each one of us to spread awareness on the merits of timely vaccinations.
Thanks for worrying about epidsituation in my country. The problem is that the number of measles cases increased.This outbreak was caused by the failure of the mass immunization campaign. As for complications in the course of disease, there is no valid data yet.
Agnieszka Will geb. Gronek, Rusudan Labadze, and others. I think you've made great points about vaccines. But what about rights? A lot of times the rights of individuals end up impeding actions which are in the best interest of the population, as a whole, at least in the short term. So just because it isn't great for the population doesn't mean that it isn't a right.
I think by vaccination the parents try to fortify their children from diseases but regarding the rights is too crucial matter. Logically , they attempt to preserve them but also parents have the right to protect their own children.
The question asked whether it was a right of the parent to choose not to vaccinate their children. This thread has mainly focused on the benefits of vaccines, the importance of vaccination, and so on, but little time have been spent on whether or not it is a right of a parent or not. As I mentioned in my original post here, that of course depends on what we mean by "rights." I provided a suggested definition, relating to the voluntary nature of rights, its predication on the rights of every subgroup in question, and the fundamental right to inaction.
@I said yes, because of my position on "the right to inaction." However, I am curious as to why some have said "no" without any justification. Perhaps Nihada Ahmetovic could explain why it is not a right?
Let's bear in mind that the main question of the thread is ''Do you think that parents' choice not to vaccinate their children is right?'' AND NOT ''Do you think that parents' choice not to vaccinate their children is a right? or ''Do you think that parents' choice not to vaccinate their children is their right? In other words, ''right'' here, means either correct, or morally acceptable (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/right), if I understand well. Am I right or wrong @Daniel Goldman? Please enlighten me.
Oops. That was my bad, Aristidis. I added "a" in there for some reason. Hmm. I'd say, as I did my original post, that a parent has an obligation to the child. The child is best protected by vaccination.
However, it might not be the best option for humanity, as a whole, if the vaccine is ineffective to the point that it actually promotes the spread of the pathogen through asymptomatic transmission: a shift towards the asymptomatic range can result in a more rapid spread through elimination of risk aversion. If that's the case, more people, in the long run, will end up being affected. Oddly, that places the obligation to the child at odds with the best needs of society.
It is the mandatory task for the parents to vaccinate their children in time to time. Otherwise, the children can be infected by lots of inflammation. Now a days the scientists discovered that a person can have the autoimmune diseases if they did not vaccinated during their childhood. Better late than never....
Parental refusal of vaccines is indeed a growing a concern for the increased occurrence of vaccine preventable diseases in children. Education is a key player in equipping parents with the necessary information so that they can make responsible immunization decisions for their children. Please have a look at these useful RG links and PDF attachment.
Article Parents’ Refusal to Vaccinate their Children: An Increasing ...
Article Why parents refuse immunization?
Article Why parents refuse childhood vaccination: A qualitative stud...
Article Exploring immunisation refusal by parents in the Malaysian context
Article When parents won't vaccinate their children: A qualitative i...
No, I think it is the duty of the parents to vaccinate their children so that many infections can be protected, as Sandhyarani Khomdram mention... your children = your happiness, so take care of your children means to care of yourself...
Some parents are objecting to vaccinating based on religious, moral or other grounds. They should just think of the society as a whole. If their child is not vaccinated and and they fall prey to the disease (against which they were not vaccinated) then that child is doing injustice to the vast number of other children he/she is mingling with. Thus the child not being vaccinated may cause overall more net harm to the society. Some may even call the parents' behavior criminal.
Do you know that in some places a mother using drugs such as cocaine during pregnancy resulting in the child born being adversely affected is subject to criminal sanctions?