Some people argue that the state of hawaii does not have right to produce parents immunise their children. Yet , I feel fit not whether or not they should immunise but if, as associates of society, they have the best not to.
Protective medicine has proved to be the most effective way of reducing the incidence of fatal child years diseases. As a result of the wide-spread practice of immunising young children in our society, many lives have been kept and the illnesses have been reduced to practically zero. In previous centuries children perished from ordinary illnesses including influenza and tuberculosis and because few people got immunity, the diseases pass on easily. Diseases such as dysentery were a result of poor hygiene but these have long been eradicated since the arrival great sanitation and clean water. Nobody would suggest that we ought to reverse this good practice at this point because fatigue has been wiped out.
Serious diseases such as polio and smallpox have also been eliminated through national immunisation programs. In consequence, children not immunised are far fewer at risk from this disease-free world than they will otherwise become. Parents selecting not to immunise are counting on the fact the diseases are actually eradicated.
In case the number of father and mother choosing to never immunise elevated, there would be the same increase in the risk of the diseases returning. Prophylaxie is no problem like seatbelts which affects only the person. A decision never to immunise could have widespread consequences for the whole of society and thus, I do not believe that people have the directly to stand apart.
In my opinion prophylaxie should be obligatory.
