What? Euthanasia? They can all be treated if they had government programs to make early detection and monitor treatment. Not following the antibiotic regime to the end of treatment is the reason that TB is becoming multidrug resistant (MDR). MDR TB costs about $300,000 to treat.
Well, with the smallpox vaccine, we all did have a mark on the arm. People over about the age of 50 plus or minus in the U.S. have a smallpox vaccine scar on their upper arm.
I will admit that this is one of the toughest issues for me. Before I write further, my two sons (my only children) were vaccinated for childhood illnesses, except for my oldest who was not vaccinated for chicken pox (he caught the disease at around a year old, the vaccine was just starting to become popular at that time (late 1990s), and we decided not to vaccinate him for it, he caught the disease before it became an issue). I see both sides. I understand wanting to have the freedom to not be forced to have my children injected with a weak/dead version of a disease with the possibilities of life altering side effects (not autism, but others). I also understand the public health aspect of the safety of the population if vaccinations are as universal as possible (exceptions for kids with conditions that don't allow them to be vaccinated). It's a tough issue.
When the rest of society is put at risk because of a disease that spreads as easily, and is serious as TB, isolation and monitoring treatment is the best way to protect the rest of society and to protect the patient too. We used to isolate TB patients while they were on antibiotics and nobody said anything about, "oh my personal sovereignty is being taken away". We understood that it was the best way to prevent the spread of the disease. It was the sacrifice of the patients made to protect the many. My son had TB when he was five. He got it from daycare. He was a sick little boy, and the isoniazid he took was hard on him. I voluntarily kept him isolated from the rest of kids for awhile so that they wouldn't be exposed. I would have been irresponsible if I had done anything else. Can't you respond to anyone without calling them names like "sanctimonious"? You're a piece of work. I would have preferred to not vaccinate my sons, but
The necessity of public health outweighs parental rights in this matter. Remove the children and sterilize the parents.
Correction. Not decriminalized per say, but the offense has been dropped from a felony to a misdemeanor. https://www.latimes.com/politics/es...ades-from-felony-to-1507331544-htmlstory.html Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Friday that lowers from a felony to a misdemeanor the crime of knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing the infection. The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive. Modern medicine allows those with HIV to live longer lives and nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission, according to state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblyman Todd Gloria (D-San Diego), authors of the bill. “Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals,” Wiener said in a statement. “HIV should be treated like all other serious infectious diseases, and that’s what SB 239 does.” Supporters of the change said the current law requires an intent to transmit HIV to justify a felony, but others noted cases have been prosecuted where there was no physical contact, so there was an argument intent was lacking. Brown declined to comment on his action. HIV has been the only communicable disease for which exposure is a felony under California law. The current law, Wiener argued, may convince people not to be tested for HIV, because without a test they cannot be charged with a felony if they expose a partner to the infection. “We are going to end new HIV infections, and we will do so not by threatening people with state prison time, but rather by getting people to test and providing them access to care,” Wiener said. Supporters of the bill said women engaging in prostitution are disproportionately targeted with criminal charges, even in cases where the infection is not transmitted. Republican lawmakers including Sen. Joel Anderson of Alpine voted against the bill, arguing it puts the public at risk. “I’m of the mind that if you purposefully inflict another with a disease that alters their lifestyle the rest of their life, puts them on a regimen of medications to maintain any kind of normalcy, it should be a felony,” Anderson said during the floor debate. “It’s absolutely crazy to me that we should go light on this.” Anderson said the answer could be to extend tougher penalties to those who expose others to other infectious diseases.
Well, in 1985, the vaccine manufacturers were all about to stop manufacturing vaccines, because the insurance companies would not insure them at a reasonable price. A bipartisan bill was passed to remedy that. It was co-sponsored by 18 Democrats and 5 Republicans in the House, 11 Democrats and 9 Republicans in the House. Reagan didn't want to sign it, but the moderates (GHW Bush, Howard Baker) in the admin persuaded him to. Please look things up before spouting off. https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/15/...exports-and-payment-for-vaccine-injuries.html https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546/cosponsors https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/827
There's no need to make the info public, it is contained in your medical history. This isn't Nazi Germany. Nor should there be exceptions for immigrants.
Right! Let's just hope they're not diseases like ebola or we really will be in schtuck? It could happen.
And yet it seemed such a good idea at the time? At least the liberals thought so. lol Thanks for an informative post.
Mine is on my thigh... I was to skinny for the arm. But that was not what I was referring to. Think 'identification of unvaccinated people'.
Please quote, specifically, where I have used the word 'sanctimonious' elsewhere. You obviously have not read a great number of my posts in this forum, but latch on and believe what you will, while ignoring who and what I was responding to.
Please back that statement up with facts, with non-partisan links. Oh, here, I'll do it for you.... https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
I guess the question is should children be protected from dumb, stupid parents who have no evidence that vaccines are not the best thing for their children but prefer to listen to struck off doctors and conspiracy freaks. Perhaps you have some evidence to show vaccinations are dangerous?
Actually the question should be, "should other peoples children be protected from the children of those ignorant and irresponsible parents"? I say yes, and in order to prevent the snowflake parent uproar just do not allow their kids to go to public schools and if by chance the kids go to the Mall, make it a misdemeanor....Felony if another kid gets sick.
Good points, but ultimately it comes down to who should make the final decision on a child's health, I think default should be the parent but where the parent is shown to be acting unreasonably then it must be the state. Most of the world agrees with this apart from the US, but it is your country and your decision. https://www.unicef.org.uk/what-we-do/un-convention-child-rights/
Since parent's have sovereignty over their minor children, it's really not a question, so you judging who is 'stupid' isn't applicable. Do YOU have the right to tell someone if they should consume certain substances? How about grease and carb laden crap 'food', given to their children.... after all, that has an impact on the society at large. It is the parent's choice, regardless of what you may think. And bottom line, that is all that matters.
I'm pro-choice, a woman should be able to do what they want with THEIR body!!!! Just not with the other human being inside their body!