students could be expelled for not having shots

[Epicurus]

What they failed to do is inform these parents they have a legal right to file an exemption. What do you think of these kinds of scare tactics? They show only one side of the issue and try to bully parents.

Collette



At 05:47 AM 01/28/2004 -0000, you wrote:
>http://www.katu.com/health/story.asp?ID=64025
>
>January 27, 2004
>Hundreds of students could be expelled for not having shots
>
>MEDFORD, ORE. - Hundreds of students in the Medford suburbs could
>face expulsion from school next month for falling behind on their
>vaccinations.
>
>Schools officials said the situation was tied to high poverty levels
>and declining social services.
>
>State law on Feb. 18 will bar 125 students at White Mountain Middle
>School in White City and 141 students at Eagle Point Middle School
>unless they get shots, mostly the hepatitis-B series or mumps,
>measles, rubella. Students can also bring in documentation showing
>they received the shots earlier, said Carol Irwin, Jackson County
>community health nurse.
>
>To head off the mass expulsion, volunteer nurses will conduct free
>shot clinics at the schools next week.
>
>Eagle Point's situation is unusual, said Risa Buck, coordinator of
>Project Health and mediator for several drug and violence prevention
>programs in Eagle Point schools.
>
>"This is an example of what happens when parents aren't able to do
>what they should for their kids and schools suffer such severe
>cutbacks over many years, so they cannot even get a basic education,"
>Buck said.
>

[GracieMae]

I hate it when parents are bullied and not given all the facts.

IMO is should be mandatory for all the facts on both sides of the issue to be given.

[RogueAngel]

Well, I think expelling them is a bit harsh. BUT there is a reason for a lot of these vaccines and in my opinion, they do need to be given barring severe reactions from the child of course. Measels and Mumps are not fun to have to go through and definitely not something you'd want your child to have to go through. The should have definitely been told about being allowed to file an exemption.

[Epicurus]

To me, the point is, irregardless of your stance on vaccines, full disclosure of the facts on both sides of the issue. One fact is that parents have a legal right too file an exemption. There is a good reason for this as vaccines have not been proven safe and are very controversial. The state cannot force the prophylactic injection of substances into our nations children without parental consent unless there is an epidemic and it becomes mandatory. A scenario where this might be is if we were under terrorist biological attack. As it is the diseases they are vaccinating for are not in and of themselves that dangerous in healthy children.
IMO it has to be a parental decision. Parents can only make good decisions if they have all of the information available. Parents only get one side of this story unless they actively seek out the other side.
This becomes most tragic when a child is injured or dies from a vaccine and the parent had no idea they had even put their child in harms way. That parent may decide that the risk is worth the benefit in which case they go in knowingly-or they opt out knowingly. Either way their are risks. The state is not raising my kids and I don't want the state deciding what risks we will take.

Collette

[RogueAngel]

I would agree with full discloser being mandatory ... yes. But, I also think that certain vaccines are a must, however I'm not one to tell people how to run their lives either.

Unfortunately, the states and federal government both are way, way too far into our rights as a parents. I would definitely welcome a change in getting them both out.

[DayDreamer]

I've always thought that vaccinations SHOULD BE a requirement, unless there is reason to believe that the individual child would react badly to it (physically). Those reactions would be things like bad reaction to a prior shot, or something like that.

I don't think religious or other waivers should be allowed. If someone wants their kid to attend public school, then they should be required to follow the same rules as everyone else. If a parent is unwilling for their child to have the shots on schedule (barring medical problems), then that parent should either homeschool or find another alternative.

I really hate the "I'm not subject to the rules" mentality I've seen with a lot of parents when it comes to immunizations and other school/district/state policies.

[Humdinger]

ITA with Collette. It is no secret that I believe in non vaxing/delay/breaking up vaxes. Unfortunatly we HAD to get current to get our medical ok to follow hubby over here, but I made damn sure they broke them up and gave us PLENTY of time to let my son's immune system recover.
Though my son was vaxed, I support the choices of others if they don't want to vax thier child. It is thier child and not mine,therefore not my choice. Whether it be for religious resons or not, who are we to say do it? We don't make Muslims say the lords prayer now do we? Hell we can't even pledge allegence to the flag in school anymore so what is the difference?
Those of you that are against delay/non vaxing have nothing to worry about if your child is vaxed, it will be the non vaxed children, IF ANY that get these "rampent" dieses. So why should you(the vaxer) feel it is your buisness to interject?

[PsychoBunny]

Ugh! I had that fight this year with my dd's school. The only vaccination she didn't have was chicken pox, ( I am selectively vaxing). And I had looked up the laws and my rights but I still lost. I did everything that I needed to do including sending the correct papers and everything from the ped's office. And then at the last minute one person at the ped's office pulled some stuff and also refused to give my dd the vax. I about lost it.

I ended up having to get it done on an emergency basis through the state so my dd could continue school.

What really upset me was that my dd had previous problems due to vax's and that's why I was being selective about it. Luckily, we only had a mild reaction this time.

[Epicurus]

Daydreamer,
Does the government own your children once they enroll in public school? If they government can force parents into vaccinating their children then they can also force other medical decisions without parental consent. How do you feel about that? How about taking the kid out of school to go get an abortion? How about birth control pills or an IUD. What about Norplant? All without parental consent. The only consent would be that of our government. Right now they need consent to give a tylenol but you think that they can mandate giving a kid a vaccine?
It seems a little extreme to say that children who are not vaccinated have to HS. Why do you feel your child is safe around a kid who has an exemption YOU approve of? What is the difference between that kid and a kid who has an exemption YOU do not approve of?
Why is it OK for the government to force vaccinations without parental consent? Vaccinations carry risks with them. If it were mandatory with no exemptions available then the government would also have to pay for each and every complication that arises from the vaccines. What about the parents whose children died as a result of vaccines? How does the government repay them?
You see, it protects the government from responsibility to give us a choice. Unfortunately they don't inform us that we have a choice. As long as this is a free country that choice will remain.
I guess it is all OK as long as Sally is safe from being around an unvaccinated child. Of course if Sally's parents had faith in the vaccines they would feel Sally is protected even if she were exposed.

Collette

[GracieMae]

I totally agree with Collette on this one.

Vaxing should totally be up to the parent and the government should not be allowed to force decisions such as this on any parent.

Unvaxed children are no threat to vaxed children. There are some very valid reasons for not vaxing. If a parent is uncomfortable with having their child vaxed they should have every right not to have them vaxed.

[PsychoBunny]

Thank you Gracie! And great points Epicurus!

[GracieMae]

That's the reason (well, one of them anyway) we love Collette so much. She makes some darn good points :)

[Epicurus]

Aw shucks. Thanks gals. You all made great points as well:)

Collette

[Minnie_Beebe]

I think this is bullshit. If a parent doesn't want to get their kids inoculated, then they shouldn't have to.

My problem was that my kids were always up-to-date on vaccines, but they went to so many doctors that I couldn't come up with all the shot paperwork. So, I just signed the form and said it was against my religion.

[Demona]

Unvaxed children are no threat to vaxed children.

Actually, they are. The reason vaccination is compulsary is that unless the vast majority of people are vaccinated (in some cases that can mean 95%, but the figure varies between conditions) the diseases stay in the population and risk mutatation. Existing vaccinations become ineffective.

[Epicurus]

Viruses mutate with or without vaccines. It is believed that vaccines actually encourage mutations. There all sorts of things they are finding now on a molecular level in the bodies of vaccinated children that was unexpected. Much of it detrimental.
Beyond that, just because in theory vaccines do X, Y and Z if 95% of the population uses them doesn't make it so. It is theory and not proven. Oh all kinds of things are proven if you only look at one side. Each side disproves the other. The truth likely lies somewhere in-between. I seriously doubt there will ever be enough non-vaxers to cause that large of a disruption anyway. Fear of disease will ensure a decent vaccination rate.
Here is a sort of parallel, only this one is man made rather than nature induced. If all smokers stopped today the death rates would plummet. Damage from 2nd hand smoke would cease but I don't see anyone mandating that. Children are harmed in huge numbers by this problem. People aren't freaking out. In fact, I saw a women with her kids at the doctor (likely getting vaccines) smoking in her car with the kids before they went in. Protecting them from one "evil" while inflicting another on them. I believe this is because we can't force our will on adults this way. They would rebel like with prohibition. Children are vulnerable and can be easily forced to our bidding. We vaccinate because they don't have a choice in part. If it were adults we were talking about we wouldn't have the high inoculation rates we do have right now. Say it is to protect the children and people will do most anything.
All I wish for is a reasonable disclosure of both the benefits AND risks. I also wish for health care workers to remain more neutral when dealing with the public. The harassment has got to stop.
Personally I don't care who vaccinates and who doesn't. I respect the personal choice of each family to do what they feel is right for them.

Collette

[Demona]

[This isn't Demona talking.]

The issue is not that vaccines make diseases mutate. The issue is that vaccination creates a selective pressure to develop the means to circumvent the vaccination. At a level of infection varying from disease to disease, the pathogen will be able to remain in the population indefinitely (i.e. be endemic); thus, it may well mutate eventually. If 95% of the population is vaccinated, the disease cannot infect more than 5% of the population. If 5% is not a large enough portion of the population to sustain an endemic, the disease declines and is wiped out. This is how smallpox was eradicated - not because everyone was vaccinated. Of course it is not this simple in practice, it depends on the distribution of immunity.

As for "theory and not proven", yes. It is epidemiology. That is the theory on which I think we should base decisions about how to handle diseases. It is absurd to suggest that on any issue the truth lies in the middle, between expert scientific opinion and its negation. And each side cannot 'disprove' the other, thats a contradiction in terms.

I don't see how smoking is relevant. Are you arguing that if we do something wrong (fail to tackle smoking) we should do other things wrong too? Or that someone is a hypocrite for not explaining their positions on other issues when talking about vaccination?

So thats why we 'harass' people. Vaccines may well have unfortunate side effects, hence clinical trials. Could you be specific about side effects? I know of few that are as bad as, say, endemic smallpox.

This is precisely the sort of issue on which action must be collective and therefore, if states have any mandate to govern at all, they have it on this.

[Epicurus]

[This isn't Demona talking.]
Whom am I speaking to? Why not log on as yourself and sign as yourself? Just wondering why the secrecy?

First of all, this debate is about whether or not parents should have the right to make this choice in their childs life. I am not against vaccinations. I am against mandatory, no exemption vaccinations. I don't, and have never, denied the notion that vaccines have helped to eradicate disease. I do not believe they are solely responsible as the evidence suggests most of these diseases were on the decline before vaccines were introduced, combined with awareness of cleanliness (hand washing) etc. I do agree vaccines have had a profound effect on disease.
BTW if 95 % of the population is vaccinated 95% of the population does not have immunity. The rate varies with each vaccine. None are 100% effective as far as I am aware. Beyond that 95% of the child population is not vaccinated not to mention the overall population. We will never reach those kinds of numbers in the overall population anyway. It is a pipe dream.

Not Demona said;
"As for "theory and not proven", yes. It is epidemiology. That is the theory on which I think we should base decisions about how to handle diseases. It is absurd to suggest that on any issue the truth lies in the middle, between expert scientific opinion and its negation. And each side cannot 'disprove' the other, that's a contradiction in terms."

Yes, and a friend of mine who works at the CDC as an epidemiologist agrees with my choices too. She agrees there are too many unanswered questions. It is only because of people raising objections and fighting for safer vaccines that the recent changes have been made at all. I am referring to the recognition that mercury in vaccines is at dangerous levels.
I believe the truth lying somewhere in the middle is perfectly reasonable considering all the personal interest involved in the research regarding vaccines. It is so laden with controversy that I cannot believe it at face value. No contradiction here at all.

Not Demona said;
"I don't see how smoking is relevant. Are you arguing that if we do something wrong (fail to tackle smoking) we should do other things wrong too? Or that someone is a hypocrite for not explaining their positions on other issues when talking about vaccination?"

Read it again then. I made a parallel illustrating the fact that we force these kinds of decisions when it is minors but when it comes to adults, who can be forced and coerced so easily we don't even try. I believe this is relevant. No I don't believe you are a hypocrite for not explaining your stance on other issues. I am talking about society at large here, not you. I don't even know who YOU are and YOU weren't part of this conversation when I wrote that, remember?
Society is not up in arms over other risks we face that kill and injure children. Why should vaccines be mandated? It should be a level playing field. It is not part of the freedom of living in a place like the US. In this free country parents have the right to choose what will be injected into their children's bodies.

Not Demona said;
"So that's why we 'harass' people. Vaccines may well have unfortunate side effects, hence clinical trials. Could you be specific about side effects? I know of few that are as bad as, say, endemic smallpox."
No I won't at this time. I simply don't have the time to do so. I can tell you already know the medically admitted side effects and you probably are already aware of the other complications that are still being debated. As long as there is sufficient reason to question the safety I have no interest in vaccinating my children in general.
Personally, I look at each vaccine separately. I look at the illness and what the risk of harm to MY family is. I have three healthy children living in very clean conditions with excellent health care. We are not at much risk. I did allow the tetanus when my son fell on his bike and I will always allow any vaccine as long as the benefit appears to outweigh the harm. At this time I believe that Measles, Mumps, CP all have benefits when acquired naturally.
I come form a time when everyone got all of these illnesses and it was viewed matter of factly. I have had all three and my parents were not scared to death. I didn't require medical care for any of these. Two of my kids have already had CP and also did not require medical care. My dh got it as an adult and was very ill. I am hopping to spare my children that fate by the natural immunity they will gain form the illness. The vaccine is likely to wear off leaving them vulnerable older when they truly face real danger.
YOU don't have to agree for me to have the right to make this decision. I don't have to agree with your decision either for it to be your legal right. See the distinction?

Not demona said;
"This is precisely the sort of issue on which action must be collective and therefore, if states have any mandate to govern at all, they have it on this."
I disagree. If the government can force this then they can force other things you might not be so on board with. With freedom comes choice. There are risks no matter what your choice. I believe that families need to make their own choices. How can we be responsible for our choices if we are not allowed to make them in the first place?
As I already said, most will choose vaccines out of fear anyway. I don't think you have much to worry about in that regard.

Collette presenting my words as my own proudly.

[Humdinger]

Can I just say I'm in AWE of you Collette? You have said EVERYTHING I was thinking or NOT thinking but so well and nicely put. Girl you rock!!! :)

[Demona]

Whom am I speaking to? Why not log on as yourself and sign as yourself? Just wondering why the secrecy?


Hardly secrecy. My boyfriend is a biologist; I am not. He knows things about the topic that I do not and I didn't want to be credited with statements I knew I could not defend. He does not have any interest in joining the board on a more permanent basis so I allowed him to use my account.

[Humdinger]

Demona,
I do beleive this is a violation of the TOS rules so in the future if your boyfriend has something to say please let him registare a name and use it. If my husband has something to say I would make him do the same. This is my username and mine alone.

[Demona]

Demona,
I do beleive this is a violation of the TOS rules so in the future if your boyfriend has something to say please let him registare a name and use it.

As the TOS stands at the moment, no it's not.

[Mabel]

As long as you are up front that it is not you posting, but your boyfriend, that is okay. We don't bite though, make him register! LOL

[Humdinger]

Ok my bust!

[Epicurus]

Thank you for the compliment Humdinger:)
Demona, no big deal. It would have bothered me less if he had said he was your other half or whatever. It felt a little like someone was playing some sort of game with me. I have many enemies from years of debating and I have been trolled more than once in a very ugly way. My alarm sensors go up easily.

Collette