NSG Senate Coffee Shop: 50% off Americanos [NSG Senate]

[Battlion]

Because it infringes on the rights of the individual and the rights of parents.

The right to allow their children to die from tetanus and hepatitis b?

The rights of parents to look after their children the way they wish, the reason I support education programmes is that if the government can give un-disputable evidence like you claim then there really will be nobody to oppose it rather than dragging children kicking and screaming to have themselves injected by the state.

[Divitaen]

The right to allow their children to die from tetanus and hepatitis b?

The rights of parents to look after their children the way they wish, the reason I support education programmes is that if the government can give un-disputable evidence like you claim then there really will be nobody to oppose it rather than dragging children kicking and screaming to have themselves injected by the state.

But there are parents who will reject the evidence for irrational reasons. Some religious people still believe vaccinations are a tool by the devil to reject God's healing. Some parents spoil their children so much they're not willing to force the child to go for a vaccination because the child hates needles. Some parents have all sorts of strange reasons, for which scientific evidence will never convince them. Not passing this Act would punish children for having such parents, when the state can do something about it.

[New Zepuha]

Because it infringes on the rights of the individual and the rights of parents.

The right to allow their children to die from tetanus and hepatitis b?

Appealing to emotion will get you no where, they are under the authority of their parents. If a family doesn't believe in vaccines, especially for religious beliefs, they shouldn't have to take it.

EDIT: So you are implying we need to force people to do stuff because you don't believe they are living the right life style?

[Battlion]

The rights of parents to look after their children the way they wish, the reason I support education programmes is that if the government can give un-disputable evidence like you claim then there really will be nobody to oppose it rather than dragging children kicking and screaming to have themselves injected by the state.

But there are parents who will reject the evidence for irrational reasons. Some religious people still believe vaccinations are a tool by the devil to reject God's healing. Some parents spoil their children so much they're not willing to force the child to go for a vaccination because the child hates needles. Some parents have all sorts of strange reasons, for which scientific evidence will never convince them. Not passing this Act would punish children for having such parents, when the state can do something about it.

Then, you should introduce an age where the child is able to decide for themselves to have these vaccinations without the consent of parents when they are able to fully understand what they do... My suggestion is 14-15

That way, ignorant parents can be effectively neutralised

[Divitaen]

The right to allow their children to die from tetanus and hepatitis b?

Appealing to emotion will get you no where, they are under the authority of their parents. If a family doesn't believe in vaccines, especially for religious beliefs, they shouldn't have to take it.

But is the authority of parents absolute? Is their autonomy over the bodies of their children absolute? We can limit this authority if it clearly harms the child. If a vaccine, objectively and scientifically, can save vulnerable children from deadly and easily-transmissible diseases, shouldn't they be forced to take it? If a parent rejects this analysis, they are putting their child in harms' way, so why should we recognize that as an exercise of responsible parental autonomy?

[Divitaen]

But there are parents who will reject the evidence for irrational reasons. Some religious people still believe vaccinations are a tool by the devil to reject God's healing. Some parents spoil their children so much they're not willing to force the child to go for a vaccination because the child hates needles. Some parents have all sorts of strange reasons, for which scientific evidence will never convince them. Not passing this Act would punish children for having such parents, when the state can do something about it.

Then, you should introduce an age where the child is able to decide for themselves to have these vaccinations without the consent of parents when they are able to fully understand what they do... My suggestion is 14-15

That way, ignorant parents can be effectively neutralised

Wait a minute, isn't that below the Aurentine age of majority? If it is below the age of majority, then we can't exactly recognize the child as being mature enough to decide for himself or herself (i.e. he/she may still be unduly influenced by parents, or minute factors, to reject the vaccination).

[Battlion]

Then, you should introduce an age where the child is able to decide for themselves to have these vaccinations without the consent of parents when they are able to fully understand what they do... My suggestion is 14-15

That way, ignorant parents can be effectively neutralised

Wait a minute, isn't that below the Aurentine age of majority? If it is below the age of majority, then we can't exactly recognize the child as being mature enough to decide for himself or herself (i.e. he/she may still be unduly influenced by parents, or minute factors, to reject the vaccination).

Then make it the age of majority, simple fix.

I was just trying to cater to you wanting children vaccinated, but either work for me.

[Divitaen]

Wait a minute, isn't that below the Aurentine age of majority? If it is below the age of majority, then we can't exactly recognize the child as being mature enough to decide for himself or herself (i.e. he/she may still be unduly influenced by parents, or minute factors, to reject the vaccination).

Then make it the age of majority, simple fix.

I was just trying to cater to you wanting children vaccinated, but either work for me.

Yes, I understand, but these children are still subject to the same potential irrationality of their parents. Besides, like I mentioned, children of ages 0-12 years are the most vulnerable to such diseases. We need a law to get children vaccinated in that time period, and only the leftover parents who refuse to comply will have a window from then to the child's age of majority to vaccinate them. If we wait for the child to reach 14-15, it will be too late for a lot of people.

[New Zepuha]

Appealing to emotion will get you no where, they are under the authority of their parents. If a family doesn't believe in vaccines, especially for religious beliefs, they shouldn't have to take it.

But is the authority of parents absolute? Is their autonomy over the bodies of their children absolute? We can limit this authority if it clearly harms the child. If a vaccine, objectively and scientifically, can save vulnerable children from deadly and easily-transmissible diseases, shouldn't they be forced to take it? If a parent rejects this analysis, they are putting their child in harms' way, so why should we recognize that as an exercise of responsible parental autonomy?

Look, there if the parent believes otherwise it is their full right to reject the vaccine, it is also their right as parents to protect their children in what way they see fit. Why should we recognize them? Because it is their right as a citizen and a parent. The child is not able to be responsible for itself until reaching age of majority as defined.

[Battlion]

Then make it the age of majority, simple fix.

I was just trying to cater to you wanting children vaccinated, but either work for me.

Yes, I understand, but these children are still subject to the same potential irrationality of their parents. Besides, like I mentioned, children of ages 0-12 years are the most vulnerable to such diseases. We need a law to get children vaccinated in that time period, and only the leftover parents who refuse to comply will have a window from then to the child's age of majority to vaccinate them. If we wait for the child to reach 14-15, it will be too late for a lot of people.

Most vulnerable doesn't mean they will get it ¬.¬

You said religious parents, most commonly kids are less religious than their parents and more accepting of ideas and evidence so now you're assuming a child is going to be indoctrinated.

If you can get a law that has mandatory vaccinations that respect the rights of the individual and bodily sovereignty without amending that law you will have my full backing until then I think we should just wait till the other is decided on.

[Divitaen]

Yes, I understand, but these children are still subject to the same potential irrationality of their parents. Besides, like I mentioned, children of ages 0-12 years are the most vulnerable to such diseases. We need a law to get children vaccinated in that time period, and only the leftover parents who refuse to comply will have a window from then to the child's age of majority to vaccinate them. If we wait for the child to reach 14-15, it will be too late for a lot of people.

Most vulnerable doesn't mean they will get it ¬.¬

You said religious parents, most commonly kids are less religious than their parents and more accepting of ideas and evidence so now you're assuming a child is going to be indoctrinated.

If you can get a law that has mandatory vaccinations that respect the rights of the individual and bodily sovereignty without amending that law you will have my full backing until then I think we should just wait till the other is decided on.

Alright fair enough. I still have to ponder over this though.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Then, you should introduce an age where the child is able to decide for themselves to have these vaccinations without the consent of parents when they are able to fully understand what they do... My suggestion is 14-15

That way, ignorant parents can be effectively neutralised

Wait a minute, isn't that below the Aurentine age of majority? If it is below the age of majority, then we can't exactly recognize the child as being mature enough to decide for himself or herself (i.e. he/she may still be unduly influenced by parents, or minute factors, to reject the vaccination).

Whiel sort of unrelated to this, I believe in all honesty that religion should not be a valid reason to turn down a vaccine anyway. Its a public health issue, and the moral qualms of a few citizens endanger everyone else, and as such I believe religious or philisophical exemptions for vaccinations should not be allowed. Only actual medical reasons, like alergies, should be permitted.

[Geilinor]

But is the authority of parents absolute? Is their autonomy over the bodies of their children absolute? We can limit this authority if it clearly harms the child. If a vaccine, objectively and scientifically, can save vulnerable children from deadly and easily-transmissible diseases, shouldn't they be forced to take it? If a parent rejects this analysis, they are putting their child in harms' way, so why should we recognize that as an exercise of responsible parental autonomy?

Look, there if the parent believes otherwise it is their full right to reject the vaccine, it is also their right as parents to protect their children in what way they see fit.

What if that "protection" is actually harmful? When does the state step in to prevent scientifically harmful parenting?

[Geilinor]

Wait a minute, isn't that below the Aurentine age of majority? If it is below the age of majority, then we can't exactly recognize the child as being mature enough to decide for himself or herself (i.e. he/she may still be unduly influenced by parents, or minute factors, to reject the vaccination).

Whiel sort of unrelated to this, I believe in all honesty that religion should not be a valid reason to turn down a vaccine anyway. Its a public health issue, and the moral qualms of a few citizens endanger everyone else. Only actual medical reasons, like alergies, should be permitted.

This^

[Geilinor]

The right to allow their children to die from tetanus and hepatitis b?

The rights of parents to look after their children the way they wish

Let me give you an analogy. Spanking. Science has proven that this is harmful to children. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-me-in-we/201202/how-spanking-harms-the-brain http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/the-long-term-effects-of-spanking/253425/ Should we still allow it? My answer would be no. What is best for the child comes first. You don't get to do whatever you want with your children because you contributed your DNA or gave birth to them. That's why we take children away from abusive parents.

[Divitaen]

Wait a minute, isn't that below the Aurentine age of majority? If it is below the age of majority, then we can't exactly recognize the child as being mature enough to decide for himself or herself (i.e. he/she may still be unduly influenced by parents, or minute factors, to reject the vaccination).

Whiel sort of unrelated to this, I believe in all honesty that religion should not be a valid reason to turn down a vaccine anyway. Its a public health issue, and the moral qualms of a few citizens endanger everyone else, and as such I believe religious or philisophical exemptions for vaccinations should not be allowed. Only actual medical reasons, like alergies, should be permitted.

Good point, I'll add an exemption for allergic reactions. However, for Battlion's point, the only problem is that there will always be people, children and parents alike, who do not fall within your more rational categories. There will be many children who reject the vaccinations for very illogical, irrational reasons. I don't think we should sacrifice their life, welfare and safety for the sake of their bodily autonomy. Sure, vulnerable doesn't mean will be infected, but it does mean that on a wider societal level, government has to intervene to solve this problem on a larger scale, and that usually means mandatory vaccinations.



Universal vaccination was how European nations eliminated smallpox at a time when one in seven children in Europe were afflicted with it. Singapore, with universal, mandatory vaccination, is free from vaccinable diseases, and the graph above shows Centre for Disease Control and their statistics regarding introduction of universal vaccination against rubella. At this point, I don't think it should be left to bodily autonomy, because without universal vaccination, vaccinable diseases will continue to be a strain on Aurentine healthcare services and the lives of Aurentine children.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Whiel sort of unrelated to this, I believe in all honesty that religion should not be a valid reason to turn down a vaccine anyway. Its a public health issue, and the moral qualms of a few citizens endanger everyone else, and as such I believe religious or philisophical exemptions for vaccinations should not be allowed. Only actual medical reasons, like alergies, should be permitted.

Good point, I'll add an exemption for allergic reactions. However, for Battlion's point, the only problem is that there will always be people, children and parents alike, who do not fall within your more rational categories. There will be many children who reject the vaccinations for very illogical, irrational reasons. I don't think we should sacrifice their life, welfare and safety for the sake of their bodily autonomy. Sure, vulnerable doesn't mean will be infected, but it does mean that on a wider societal level, government has to intervene to solve this problem on a larger scale, and that usually means mandatory vaccinations.



Universal vaccination was how European nations eliminated smallpox at a time when one in seven children in Europe were afflicted with it. Singapore, with universal, mandatory vaccination, is free from vaccinable diseases, and the graph above shows Centre for Disease Control and their statistics regarding introduction of universal vaccination against rubella. At this point, I don't think it should be left to bodily autonomy, because without universal vaccination, vaccinable diseases will continue to be a strain on Aurentine healthcare services and the lives of Aurentine children.

Agreed, unles there is a valid medical reason, vaccinations should be mandatory and no op outs. There is a reason why we have them in the first place.

[Divitaen]

Reposting this, edited version of the Act.

Compulsory Vaccinations Act

An Act to amend the Bodily Sovereignty Act and institute mandatory vaccinations for deadly and infectious diseases to promote the health of Aurentine children

Urgency: High | Co-Authors: Divitaen [CMP]; Geilinor [NDP] | Category: Health

Sponsors: Ainin [NDP]; NEO Rome Republic [NDP]; Byzantium Imperial [IP]

The Senate of the Aurentine Commonwealth,

Recognizing the importance of vaccinations, especially for young children, to decrease the vulnerability of Aurentine citizens to infectious and deadly diseases,

Understanding that a continued proliferation of such infectious and deadly diseases would not only harm the welfare of Aurentine citizens, but place an unnecessary strain and burden upon the Aurentine healthcare system,

Desiring an immediate solution that will require Aurentine citizens to improve their biological immunity to such infectious diseases,

Hereby enacts the following bill:

Article 1 - Definitions

1. For the purposes of this Act, "vaccine" refers to a medical innovation prepared from a causative agent of a disease or a synthetic substitute of the pathogen that is injected into a human body for the primary purpose of stimulating the body's immune system to prepare against a possible infection by a similar pathogen in the future,
2. For the purposes of this Act, "infectious and deadly disease" refers to a a medical illness caused by a proliferation of a harmful biological pathogen that is easily transmissible to other humans, has a high mortality rate amongst infected individuals and has an existing vaccination that has been tested and proven to increase biological immunity against infection by such a disease,
3. For the purposes of this Act, "children" refers to Aurentine citizens between the ages of 0-12 years, as this is the age when children are the most vulnerable to infectious and deadly diseases,
   
   Article 2 - Bodily Sovereignty Act
4. The Bodily Sovereignty Act hereby is amended as follows:
   1. For the sub-clause entitled "medical treatment", the term "individual" shall be replaced with "an adult older or the same age as the Aurentine age of majority";
   2. Adds the sentence "Clarifies that children under the age of majority in Aurentina may still be required by law to participate in certain medical procedures, if relevant legislation is passed in the Senate of the Aurentine Commonwealth, and no Aurentine adult is allowed to prohibit a child or ward under his or her care to participate in a legally-mandatory medical procedure." to the sub-clause entitled "medical treatment";
   
   Article 3 - Infectious and Deadly Diseases
5. The National Health Board (NHB) Regional Authorities shall have the responsibility of compiling a Registry of Vaccinable Diseases, which falls under the relevant responsibility of "regulation of all healthcare professionals" under the Universal Healthcare Act, with a list of medical illnesses which fall under the following criteria:
   1. The disease is easily transmissible and communicable in nature;
   2. The disease causes infected individuals to suffer from a severely-high mortality rate, enough to cause significant disruption to the Aurentine healthcare services;
   3. The disease in question falls under the World Health Organization (WHO) Report on Infectious Diseases, unless it is determined to be a disease that is infectious only within the territories of the Aurentine Commonwealth compared to that in the international community;
   4. The disease has an available vaccine that is able to increase an individual's biological immunity to it;
6. The NHB Regional Authorities are required to list the following diseases under the Registry of Vaccinable Diseases:
   1. Tuberculosis;
   2. Hepatitis B;
   3. Pneumococcal;
   4. Diphtheria;
   5. Pertussis;
   6. Tetanus;
   7. Poliovirus;
   8. Haemophilus influenzae type b;
   9. Measles;
   10. Mumps;
   11. Rubella;
   12. Human papillomavirus;
   13. Influenza;
7. The NHB Regional Authorities are hereby responsible for the drafting of a recommended timetable, available for public viewing, for children of ages 0-12 years to be immunized or vaccinated against diseases listed in the Registry of Vaccinable Diseases, to guide parents who wish to follow governmental guidelines for vaccination;
   
   Article 4 - Mandatory Vaccinations
8. All children of ages 0-12 years, who are registered, Aurentine citizens, must receive the relevant vaccinations and immunizations against the diseases listed under the Registry of Vaccinable Diseases, by the time the child reaches 12 years of age;
9. Clarifies that all relevant vaccinations are free-of-charge and completely paid for under the Universal Healthcare Act;
10. The NHB Regional Authorities are hereby responsible for the following duties:
    1. Annually cross-referencing all children, between the ages of 0-12 years, who have received vaccinations under the Aurentine healthcare system, with the list of citizens who turn 12 years of age in that year;
    2. Ascertaining, from the aforementioned cross-referencing, the list of citizens who have not been immunized and vaccinated from the diseases listed under the Registry of Vaccinable Diseases;
    3. Coordinating and working with relevant healthcare providers, relevant Medical Care Trusts and the Office of Medical Care and Ambulance Service Regulation (Ofmed) to compile the relevant information listed in the previous sub-clauses of this clause of this Act;
    
    Article 5 - Punishments for non-compliance
11. All parents with children of 12 years of age that have not been immunized or vaccinated from the relevant diseases listed under the Registry of Vaccinable Diseases are considered to be in non-compliance with this Act, and will be punished with the following a monthly fine of £80.
12. Clarifies that the aforementioned punishments will persist when the unvaccinated child reaches 12 years of age until the child has been vaccinated for the relevant diseases or when the child reaches the age of majority, whichever comes first,
13. Clarifies that in a case of couple that has endured a custody dispute of a child when he or she was between 0-12 years of age, the parent(s) that had legal custody of the child for the majority of his or her life when he or she was between 0-12 years of age will be held legally liable for non-compliance under this Act, and the parent who coincidentally had custody of the child when he or she turned 12 years of age will not be held in non-compliance alone,
14. The punishment of parents in non-compliance of this Act shall be enforced via the list of unvaccinated children compiled by the NHB Regional Authorities in Article 4 of this Act, and the NHB Regional Authorities shall be responsible for coordinating, with relevant medical bodies and judicial agencies to collect the monthly fine required from such parents under this article until the unvaccinated child reaches the age of majority or is vaccinated for the required diseases, whichever comes first,
    
    Article 6 - Exemptions
15. Parents with children of ages 0-12 years, or with children from ages 12 to the Aurentine age of majority that have not been vaccinated from diseases under the Registry of Vaccinable Diseases, may apply for exemption from relevant NHB Regional Authorities, and the NHB Regional Authorities will allow the exemption only if the child has a severe and life-threatening allergic reaction to components of the vaccine,
16. Clarifies that the exemption can only be accepted if the child is properly diagnosed by a licensed doctor, and the diagnosis must be verified by the NHB Regional Authorities, and the exemption will only apply to the specific vaccine that the child is allergic to, meaning that the parent is still required by law to have the child vaccinated for other diseases where the child is not allergic to the respective vaccine or face the legal penalties under Article 5,
17. The NHB Regional Authorities have the responsibility of ensuring that parents who have received exemptions are not unduly punished under Article 5 and fined for not vaccinating a child for a disease listed under the Registry of Vaccinable Diseases for a vaccine that the child has been exempted from.

[Divitaen]

Good point, I'll add an exemption for allergic reactions. However, for Battlion's point, the only problem is that there will always be people, children and parents alike, who do not fall within your more rational categories. There will be many children who reject the vaccinations for very illogical, irrational reasons. I don't think we should sacrifice their life, welfare and safety for the sake of their bodily autonomy. Sure, vulnerable doesn't mean will be infected, but it does mean that on a wider societal level, government has to intervene to solve this problem on a larger scale, and that usually means mandatory vaccinations.

(Image)

Universal vaccination was how European nations eliminated smallpox at a time when one in seven children in Europe were afflicted with it. Singapore, with universal, mandatory vaccination, is free from vaccinable diseases, and the graph above shows Centre for Disease Control and their statistics regarding introduction of universal vaccination against rubella. At this point, I don't think it should be left to bodily autonomy, because without universal vaccination, vaccinable diseases will continue to be a strain on Aurentine healthcare services and the lives of Aurentine children.

Agreed, unles there is a valid medical reason, vaccinations should be mandatory and no op outs. There is a reason why we have them in the first place.

So will you sponsor the Compulsory Vaccinations Act, for this purpose.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Happily sponsor.

[Divitaen]

Happily sponsor.

Thanks!

[The Nihilistic view]

Agreed, unles there is a valid medical reason, vaccinations should be mandatory and no op outs. There is a reason why we have them in the first place.

So will you sponsor the Compulsory Vaccinations Act, for this purpose.

I swear I told you a couple of weeks ago but this bill if passed would be illegal.

[Divitaen]

So will you sponsor the Compulsory Vaccinations Act, for this purpose.

I swear I told you a couple of weeks ago but this bill if passed would be illegal.

Why? It repeals a section of the BSA along with it, so what other law makes it illegal?

[The Nihilistic view]

I swear I told you a couple of weeks ago but this bill if passed would be illegal.

Why? It repeals a section of the BSA along with it, so what other law makes it illegal?

Your replacement clause.

[Divitaen]

Why? It repeals a section of the BSA along with it, so what other law makes it illegal?

Your replacement clause.

If I repeal the section about bodily autonomy in medical treatment, then the replacement clause does not contravene any part of the BSA, as far as I know. Although I will check again just to make sure.