Australian Government to withdraw benefits to parents who refuse to vaccinate children

[Warrigal]

Remember Sheri Tenpenny? She was planning to visit Australia to promote her antivax ideas and was met with a community backlash. In the end she decided not to come at all, but her literature and social media propaganda is having an effect as vaccination rates are beginning to fall.

This is the Federal Government's response:

Australia denies benefits to parents who won't vaccinate

2015-04-12

Sydney - Australians who refuse to vaccinate their children will no longer receive child care subsidies and family tax benefits, Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced on Sunday. The widely anticipated government crackdown comes as Australia sees an increase in the number of so-called vaccine objectors.

"The choice made by families not to immunise their children is not supported by public policy or medical research nor should such action be supported by taxpayers in the form of child care payments," Abbott said. The government will on January 1 remove a "conscientious objection" provision and permit exemptions only on strict medical or religious grounds, he said.

Parents who cite religion would have to be affiliated with a religious group with a registered objection approved by the government.

The rules would also be amended to require benefit applicants to show that children of all ages have been immunised, Abbott said.
Parents who vaccinate should have confidence that their children will not be at risk of contracting potentially life-threatening illness because of the objections of others.

About 97% of benefit recipients meet current immunisation requirements. "However more than 39 000 children aged under seven are not vaccinated because their parents are vaccine objectors. This is an increase of more than 24 000 children over 10 years," Abbott said.

Recent outbreaks of measles, whooping cough and other diseases that are preventable through immunisation in various parts of the world have fuelled the vaccination debate.

The anti-vaccination lobby links childhood immunisation to conditions such as autism. US anti-vaccination activist Sheri Tenpenny cancelled a series of seminars in Australia in January over what she said on Facebook were threats from "pro-vaccine extremists". On Wednesday, regulators revoked the license of a local charity that reportedly helped organise Tenpenny's visit, for promoting an unproven theory related to sudden infant death syndrome.

http://www.news24.com/World/News/Australia-denies-benefits-to-parents-who-wont-vaccinate-20150412

Your thoughts?

 

[oakapple]

Hmmm, a bit tricky, however withholding benefits doesn't seem right does it really?Curtailing a freedom, and it seems to be a small percentage of benefit claimants anyway, what about those who don't claim but refuse to vaccinate? Just because some people need help with benefits is no reason to treat them any differently.

 

[Josiah]

Withholding benefits might be a little drastic, but I entirely favor the government's taking action to promote public health and vaccinating is an important part of such a program so I'd favor some sort of penalty for parents who choose to op out. In the US all someone needs to do is mention religious liberty and they can do anything they damn please just so long as it has nothing to do with Islam. Because religious liberty doesn't apply to them mooslums.

 

[Don M.]

I'm sure there are some valid reasons....in some peoples minds...against vaccination, But, they should be thinking of all the children their kids might expose to a disease if they are Not vaccinated. Unless they want to home school their kids, and keep them isolated, parents have some obligation to insure the health of not only their own kids, but all the others as well.

 

[oakapple]

This is true Don, but it would be wrong to single out people receiving benefits only and not apply it to everyone.

 

[Don M.]

This is true Don, but it would be wrong to single out people receiving benefits only and not apply it to everyone.

Yes, I doubt that withholding benefits would be the best way to handle this issue. That would probably affect only those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder....rich kids get sick, too. I think some of our schools require immunization before a young child can be enrolled in school...that would seem to be a better option.

I'm sure that there have been some side effects of vaccination, but in the vast majority of cases, the rewards far outweigh the risks.

 

[Warrigal]

I'm sure there are some valid reasons....in some peoples minds...against vaccination, But, they should be thinking of all the children their kids might expose to a disease if they are Not vaccinated. Unless they want to home school their kids, and keep them isolated, parents have some obligation to insure the health of not only their own kids, but all the others as well.

That's the thinking, Don, and there is a bit of a public backlash from the parents who vaccinate against the anti vaxxers. The reason is that there is a time gap for newborns until they can be fully vaccinated and some very tiny babies have been getting whooping cough from, presumably, unvaccinated or partially vaccinated older children.

I would hope that the government is acting on strong medical advice and not just jumping on what is sees might be a popular political decision. However it has two problems at the moment: it's budget is in tatters and it is looking for savings in every cupboard rather than tackle tax avoidance by corporations and it continues to slump in the opinion polls.

This morning I heard a doctor/professor saying that the measure taken might actually prove to be counter productive and that the current practice of insisting that exemption only be granted after the parents have had an interview with a GP who would outline the benefits of immunisation and the risks of refusing it, is actually very effective in persuading parents with worries. These same parents might dig in if a more draconian approach is used.

The child care and family tax benefits are means tested and the wealthiest parents are unlikely to be bothered about this approach and there is a relatively high rate of refusal in the most affluent suburbs. However this measure should bring up rates, especially for booster shots, for everyone else. The plan is for parents to have to show proof of immunisation to schools etc at all ages. Currently this only happens when they first enrol for preschool and primary school. It does serve as a reminder to forgetful parents.

 

[oakapple]

I think it would be best for every child to be vaccinated in an ideal world.It was thought that the multiple jab may cause autism, because autism traits typically show at around the same age as the children getting the vaccine.My daughter paid for single shots because of this worry, ironically, as my grandson proved to have autism later anyway.I can think of no reason not to have the jabs at all but doing it through education would be the best way forward with a national campaign.