Poverty advocates are crying foul over the fact that the government is even raising the idea of linking the immunisation of children to benefit receipt, even though it is an established practice that works well in many other countries. This is a discussion that is taking place in the wider context of the government’s initiative to better protect vulnerable children. Requiring beneficiaries to immunise their children – unless they are opposed for conscience reasons - is surely part of their obligation as parents. Those who fail to do so are putting their children at risk.
On the face of it - sounds good. Underneath is a dark side.
Starts with immunisation of children. Then compulsory flu
vaccinations for the elderly? At that point, the flood gates
of state-enforced medication are wide open. Compulsory
sterilisation next? State-drive eugenics in its infancy.
The problem does not lie in parental obligations at all. The
real problem lies in tax-payer funded rescue nets. Because
the gov't (using taxpayer money) has to pay for all those
costs of hospitalisation and so on, that seemingly gives them
the right to dictate all sorts of freedom constraints.
This is the total-state-control eventuality that the doomsayers
against broad spectrum welfare had in mind when protesting.
Not just the dependency aspect, but the Orwellian control in-
herent and latent in it.
Neither my children nor grand children were immunised. It
was quite a struggle to achieve. It was necessary to lie on
application forms. None suffered any of the terrible diseases
predicted. Proper and healthy home and food was all it took.
Mass immunisation is not the panacea it's portrayed to be.
Unless there's a vaccine against beneficiary dependence.