Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Children without MMR jab 'should be banned from school'

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 June 2009
CHILDREN should be banned from school unless they can prove they have had the MMR vaccine, according to a public health expert.
Sir Sandy Macara, former chairman of the British Medical Association (BMA), wants the MMR jab, which guards against measles, mumps and rubella, to be made compulsory, and he has reportedly submitted a motion for debate at the BMA's annual conference
later this month.

The number of children receiving the vaccine plummeted after research wrongly linked it to an increased risk of autism.

The drop in take-up has been blamed for measles outbreaks across the country and raised fears it could lead to an epidemic.

Children should receive their first dose of the vaccine at 13 months and the second at around three years and four months. But one in four children under five has not had both injections.

Sir Sandy said: "Our attempts to persuade people have failed.

"The suggestion is that we ought to consider making a link which in effect would make it compulsory for children to be immunised if they are to receive the benefit of a free education from the state."

The London Strategic Health Authority is understood to have asked the government whether it could introduce compulsory vaccinations, but was told the voluntary immunisation system would remain in place.

Documents obtained from a freedom of information request revealed it asked about the "feasibility of requiring an immunisation certificate for measles before children go to school".

While acknowledging that immunisation rates in London are consistently lower than the rest of the country, a Department of Health official reportedly said: "Our strategy is to maintain a voluntary immunisation system and invest efforts in educating parents about the benefits of vaccination and dispelling 'myths' about vaccine safety."

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of BMA science and ethics, said the association produced a report which looked at the issue of compulsory vaccination in 2003.

"While some countries do operate immunisation programmes where there is some degree of compulsion, there are always exceptions and even compulsory systems do not provide 100 per cent cover," she said.

"Doctors feel it is preferable for health professionals to inform and educate parents about the overwhelming benefits of vaccination, not only for their children but for the public health of society in general.

"The report also concluded that vaccination remained the safest and most effective way of preventing infectious diseases."

Rates of MMR immunisation in Scotland have risen, with figures showing the uptake by five years of age is 95.6 per cent.





The full article contains 430 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 June 2009 9:28 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: MMR vaccine
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 01:18:59


The simple solution is to bring back the single Jabs that we all trusted!, is this soo difficult to understand?,,,God! It is like trying to teach an Adult on how to clean their hands!

We are becoming worse than 'Red-China'!, and I for one will not be dictated to, on giving any Child of mine, what is no-less a poison to some unfortunate Children, to-which, we still await the answers, for the destruction the MMR could be responsible for.

My Children will be vaccinated, but with single shots that are know safe, as far as your MMR goes, you know where it can go,,,,'WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE'!, And I am not talking 'Red-China'!

2

brianmca3,

auld reekie 04/06/2009 03:51:58
ban kids for not having the jab?,and why did HM Gov not pay out to victims of jab?
since when did we become a nazi state?,if a council stated that no muslim kids allowed as we want to serve pork chops ,the huge screams of protest could be heard by a deaf man
single shots worked for years,until blair stuck his middle class snout in
or maybe we should do what americans do ,have measle parties,mumps parties,etc kid gets measles,invite non jabbed kids over for party,they catch it ,body makes anti measle antibodies
what next goose stepping in schools,marching in jackboots shouting seig heil herr brown,ACHTUNG,ACHTUNG,Thicko Councilors VERBOTEN ,DUMMKOPF
3

,

04/06/2009 05:42:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

Unimpressed one,

04/06/2009 08:25:41
The rubella component of the jab is to protect pregnant women that the recipient may come into contact with. As such this should be separated from the triple vaccine as it confers no health protection for the recipient. Had this idiotic government shown common sense and offered single vaccine options, none of this would have happened.


Also since the government denies responsibility for brain damage caused by this vaccine, it cannot force people to have it, and as such, any compulsion would breach their human rights, as would banning them from school. Another piece of ill-conceived legislation.
5

ianH,

Balerno 04/06/2009 09:26:12
Well, the health Fascists are picking the next battleground, one they may lose, but why just before the english local elections? another agenda?
6

Eve,

Scotland 04/06/2009 11:57:02
How are the parents supose to prove there child has had the jab? It's easy to lose a wee bit of paper.


Would it no be smarter to give the jab at school? Then you could redgester whos had it and whos no.
7

,

04/06/2009 12:38:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

english charlie,

04/06/2009 12:42:26
What danger is a child who has not had the jab to a child that has had the jab?
Is this just another ploy to make more money for pharmaceutical companies?
Scientific studies must leave NO room for doubt.
9

,

04/06/2009 13:01:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

Unimpressed one,

04/06/2009 13:08:15
#8, The vaccine is primarily developed to protect women of child-bearing age from congenital rubella. It confers no health protection for young men. Get your facts straight.
11

Pentland,

04/06/2009 14:19:03
#11 Unimpressed one

There are two aspects important here - the protection of the child and the protection of the wider population. Vaccination should protect the child but if the uptake is above a certain specific level, depending on the disease - let's say 95% of the vulnerable population - then there aren't enough people to get the disease to allow it to spread and you don't get the outbreaks or epidemic mentioned in the article.
12

,

04/06/2009 15:52:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

Unimpressed one,

04/06/2009 16:06:14
#13, So I am right in that other than a male child perhaps protected against getting a dose of German measles which is likely to be no more severe than a rash, being vaccinated with the rubella component of the MMR confers no protection for recipient males. Perhaps you need lessons in simple logic.
14

,

04/06/2009 16:12:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

Unimpressed one,

04/06/2009 16:14:58
So I am correct. The rubella component confers protection to pregnant females by proxy. Simple logic.
16

AndrewB,

04/06/2009 16:48:52
never forget that MMR cannot be made compulsory under the human rights act as its made from unethical cell lines which are cloned from an abortion.
You cannot force people to inject this filty witched brew if you have religious, ethical or moral objection to such sick and wicked ingdredients in vaccines.
17

,

04/06/2009 17:10:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

ebbi,

spain 04/06/2009 21:16:45
it is amazingly simple yet there are people who argue for the vaccine. the whole game is to make money for the pharmaceutical companies who have the politicians in their pockets and will make it a law soon or later.
the argument against vaccination is that the vaccines contain preservatives such as mercury and other poisonous chemicals that can harm childrens´ brain.
people should be given the option as we are told all the time by the corrupt and hypocrite politicians but when it comes to money making schemes!! hey do not interfere with state!!!
this is freedom and democracy the labour version!!!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.