IT is non-negotiable. Soon, parents must have their children vaccinated, or face the consequences. For, the argument is straightforward — it is a public duty. When parents refuse protection against infectious diseases for their children, they are, in fact, threatening the health of others, especially children. Herein is the reason why making vaccination mandatory is justifiable, however much some may protest against it for infringing on their freedom to act as they see fit. After all, as much as anti-vaccine parents are driven by concern for their children, so, too, are the authorities for the population at large. If, however, the latter were to ignore a statistical truth — that diseases once thought to have been eliminated have returned and is on the increase — then, that is just being irresponsible. The Health Ministry must act to prevent the return of tuberculosis, leprosy, measles and polio, for instance — the diseases said to have made a comeback.
Indeed, the anti-vaccination movement has a history as long as the vaccines themselves, and with every new controversy that has surfaced, they are given a new lease of life. Mercury content in a vaccine preservative is a recent cause for much unease among parents, despite strong pro and con positions from credible bodies; meaning that the jury is still out. But, given its claimed connection to autism, attention deficit hypersensitivity disorder and speech delay, a parent’s reservation cannot but be empathised with. This fear has resulted in the “Green Our Vaccines” campaign. Fair enough, when they call for the removal of toxins, perceived or otherwise, from vaccines. Making vaccines safe is not unreasonable. But, what about unfounded allegations that vaccines contain porcine DNA and are, therefore, forbidden to Muslims?
Of course, the Islamic Development Department (Jakim) has recently pronounced them safe for Muslims, but ridiculous suspicions like this are not funny when it causes vulnerability among the young. Is it reasonable to leave a child unprotected, in Malaysia at least, where evidence proves that dangerous infectious diseases are revisiting the country? Is not exposing one’s child to a possibly fatal illness a form of criminal negligence?
As guardians of a child’s wellbeing, parents are obliged to guarantee its right to life. The reticence to vaccinate is, though, based on the desire to prevent any hurt to the child, which leaves the government in a quandary. Mandatory though it is to vaccinate a child, the punishment cannot possibly be one that deprives the child of its parents. The proposed retribution then is that a child unvaccinated cannot attend school and must be home-schooled. This is the case in the United States. In Australia, the action actually denies parents the right to childcare rebates and welfare. Obviously, societies do not appreciate an individualism that has no appreciation of the general good — a life free of unnecessary health threats and the right to good health. Furthermore, given that the fears are far too often groundless, parents cannot be intransigent. Vaccination is one of the top 10 modern-day achievements. That it has benefited generation after generation for two centuries is surely proof of its safety.