|No jab, no pay? NO WAY!FREEDOM OF CHOICEProtests in Australia|
Letter to mp's
Letter template for MP's
I am writing to you regarding the No Jab No Pay policies, proposed
by the government, that would eliminate all parental rights regarding
vaccination decisions for their children.
These policies would
remove the conscientious and religious objections to vaccinations and
makes full, complete vaccination a prerequisite to receive FTB A supplementary
and child care subsidies.
I urge you to vote against these policies
as they are highly flawed, discriminatory and ultimately illegal. They
equate to a form of mandatory vaccination for low income earners and
single parents relying on child care.
Please carefully read the reasons
why I would recommend that you do not support these policies, as well as the important links that support my
reasons. I will also include my own personal reasons for not vaccinating to
the full Australian schedule and how these policies will negatively
impact on mine and my children's lives.
1. Informed Consent -
informed consent is written into the government's vaccine handbook (1)
and clearly states "For consent to be legally valid, the following
elements must be present: It must be given voluntarily in the absence of
undue pressure, coercion or manipulation."
The policies remove
any form of philosophical objection and impose financial penalties for
those who decide to opt out or delay vaccination. Even though the
majority of Australians who delay or object are high income earners who
will not be affected (2), there are single income families, single
parent families and low income earners who will be forced into either
choosing vaccination or child care/jobs. Some parents will need to leave
their jobs if they can no longer afford childcare, or be forced into a
situation where they will have to vaccinate their children (against
their will) in order to keep their jobs. This is not informed consent
and this is illegal.
Definition of coercion - the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
2. Australia currently has record high vaccination rates - despite this Pertussis notifications have dramatically risen (3).
1991 <71% of all Australian children aged 0-6yrs were fully vaccinated and we had only 347 cases of Whooping Cough
2011 90% of all Australian children aged 0-5yrs were fully vaccinated
for Whooping Cough and we had 38,751 cases of Whooping Cough.
vaccine does not prevent the spread of infection (4) and the current
strain that is dominant in Australia is one that is not covered by the
How can a policy equating to mandatory vaccination be
implemented when a current vaccine on the schedule is a failure.
Vaccination rates, clearly, have nothing to do with pertussis outbreak
rates and there are studies that indicate vaccinated individuals have
an increased risk of catching the strain not targeted by the vaccine
3. Vaccines are not safe or effective for everyone - and
where there is a risk there must be a choice, free from financial
punishment or coercion.
Vaccination poses its own risk to health
and is legally termed "unavoidably unsafe"(7), by removing objections
and enforcing financial punishments for not vaccinating the government
is breaching the constitution and Nuremberg code. This policy does not
take into account the individual needs of the child or their health care
requirements. The immuno-compromised people can receive vaccinations if
they choose (8).
I also urge you to read the important points
from this article concerning the slippery slope of imposing government
sanctions on to medical procedures. http://i2p.com.au/some-questions-for-scott-morrison-on-the…/
The government has to provide sufficient proof that forcing a medical
procedure (ignoring the individuals rights) on its citizens is
necessary. This policy makes no attempt to identify what that interest
could be. As stated above and below, the conscientious objectors do not
pose a risk to society.
4. Dr Julie Leask is a vaccination expert
and she strongly
opposes these policies proposed by the Abbott Government. (9) The AMA
also has issued a statement written by Dr Leask stating that
Conscientious objectors do not have a negative impact on Australian
vaccination levels nor pose a threat to society. (10)
5. My personal reasons for not vaccinating to the Australian schedule and the way these policies will negatively impact me are:
(this is where you write your own personal reasons :))
Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope you oppose these policies
*3 Pertussis notifications from 1991-2013 NNDSS
http://www9.health.gov.au/cda/source/rpt_2.cfm… Pertussis vaccination rates for 2011
Pertussis Vaccination rates in 1990-2001
*6 Findings indicated that 85% of the isolates were PRN-deficient and vaccinated patients had significantly higher odds than unvaccinated patients of being infected with PRN-deficient strains. Moreover, when patients with up-to-date DTaP vaccinations were compared to unvaccinated patients, the odds of being infected with PRN-deficient strains increased, suggesting that PRN-bacteria may have a selective advantage in infecting DTaP-vaccinated persons."
*7 The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act acknowledges that vaccine injury or death may be “unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and accompanied by proper directions and warnings.” 42 U.S.C. 300aa-22(b)(1). The “unavoidable” language in the Act is from the Restatement (Second) of Torts that applies to “products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe.” Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 402A, comment k (1965). http://www.ebcala.org/unanswered-questions/vaccine-epidemic…
*9 In summary, it is unlikely to make a meaningful difference to improving vacation rates. It amounts to a form of mandatory vaccination for lower income families, but without a no-fault vaccine injury compensation system implemented alongside. Some children from lower income families will no longer be able to attend childcare. It almost certainly won’t shift entrenched vaccine rejectors. As a monetary sanction it comes with insufficient evidence of its impact on vaccination rates, whereas Australia’s current system of incentives comes with strong evidence for their impact on vaccination rates. https://julieleask.wordpress.com/