Ministers advance bill to ban the unvaccinated from schools

Ministers on Sunday advanced a bill that would give Israeli authorities the power to ban entry to all educational frameworks any child or person who has not been vaccinated against a disease when there is a national concern over an outbreak of the illness.

The so-called “Vaccination Law” would apply to all schools — from kindergartens through universities — and comes in response to an outbreak of measles in Israel, which was blamed on those who were not immunized against the disease. Hundreds fell ill with the infectious virus this year, and an 18-month-old toddler died in Jerusalem, the first such death from measles in 15 years.

Zionist Union MK Yoel Hasson and Jewish Home MK Shuli Moalem-Refaeli, who wrote the bill in cooperation with a Midaat non-profit public health organization and other MKs, welcomed the approval by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation. The panel set up the bill for a preliminary Knesset vote later this week. The bill requires another three plenum votes to become law.

The bill, which is also supported by the Israel Medical Association and its pediatric division, lays out a national policy for vaccinations and how to deal with those who opt out of the preventive treatment, commonly known as anti-vaxxers.

There has been a growing phenomenon of parents refusing to vaccinate their children, due to various discredited and unproven claims that the life-saving practice is dangerous.

The bill proposes that “in circumstances when there is a concern of an outbreak of disease against which there is a routine vaccination, educational institutes will prevent the entry to the institute any child, teacher or other person who is not vaccinated against the disease, according to the directions of the director-general of the Health Ministry, for a suitable period.”

Children who, for medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated, may be granted entry to schools with the approval of a medical expert. However, the Health Ministry will still have the authority to prevent the child entering if it is felt there is a danger to public health.

“We must deal with parents who do not vaccinate for lack of knowledge or for ideological reasons to bring about improved public health,” Moalem-Refaeli said.

“Now it will be possible to implement a national vaccination policy that defines principles and goals, which systematically addresses the refusal of vaccines, and which balances between maintaining public health and freedom,” Hasson said.

MK Merav Ben-Ari (Kulanu), who also co-sponsored the bill, noted that “in recent weeks we’ve constantly heard about an outbreak of measles among us that even cost the life of a baby girl in a tragic disaster that could have been prevented.”

“As the mother of a one-and-a-half-year-old girl who this year for the first time went to a daycare program, I, like every parent, want to know that my daughter is free of such danger.”

At the beginning of the month, an infant girl died of measles in Jerusalem According to officials at the capital’s Shaare Zedek Hospital, the infant was not vaccinated against the virulently contagious disease.

The girl may have contracted the disease from her parents, both of whom were diagnosed with measles and neither of whom had been vaccinated.

Measles has made an aggressive return this year in the Israeli population, with the largest spread — 753 known infections — recorded in Jerusalem’s ultra-Orthodox community, due to a refusal by some radical segments of the community to be vaccinated.

timesofisrael.com/ministers-advance-bill-to-ban-the-unvaccinated-from-schools/

When there exists a community, as Jeremy Bentham said, "the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation."

If one individual chooses to stay outside the community, on a question that affects all within the community, he or she may be properly excluded.

thats a thorney proposition Quill

I'd first challenge you to define and put bounds on "affects all" Especially as your first part includes "morals"

Lord Foul wrote:thats a thorney proposition Quill

I'd first challenge you to define and put bounds on "affects all" Especially as your first part includes "morals"

It is Bentham's statement I quote.  I know Bentham has always been challenged for his position on qualitative morals, but you've got to understand that Jeremy Bentham was a legislator first of all, unlike James Mill and his son, John Stuart Mill. The latter were more interested in delving into the substance of morals.

Both Bentham and the Mills were looking for a moral theory--utilitarianism--but Bentham had only to find a calculus for legislation.  Since this is a legislative question, I felt less inhibited using Bentham's ideas.  Bentham...

Hearns wrote:…was not primarily interested in the problems of moral philosophy insofar as this concerns the evaluation of individual human acts; rather, utility was devised by Bentham as the principle to be used by the legislator in determining what laws should be enacted...

Thomas Hearns, Studies in Utilitarianism (1971).

Thus, Bentham came up with a more quantitative philosophy.  We have a quantitative question here.  As for "affects all", we deal in risks.  Every possible child faces the risk of contracting a disease, no matter how many may eventually come down with it.

Since it's a legislative question, we look prospectively at a risk pool of everyone in the community.  Given the question is one of regulating for the community, the moral choice is to protect as many as possible.  The benefit to the individual is less than the risk to all.  Since we cannot force an individual to undergo vaccination, the default option is to exclude the individual.

Anyway, that's what Bentham would say.

What govt should be advocating instead, is screening on immigrants for things like TB and aids... And barring entry...

Tommy Monk wrote:What govt should be advocating instead, is screening on immigrants for things like TB and aids... And barring entry...

How are immigrants involved? That's a secondary matter. I'd imagine that immigrants would love any vaccines or medical help. Anyway, immigrants play no part in helping to vaccinate the unwilling.

By blocking kids from school you create real incentives to vaccinate.

Nothing wrong with these school vaccination policies...

As long as they are allied with proper and fair administration, 'free' universal vaccination availability for the children, and education for the parents..

Most (if not all) Australian states already have similar policies in place; while a step further for some remote Aboriginal communities can be to  tie in parents' welfare payments being reliant on their children being vaccinated.

In clear cases like this one of public/'universal' health, it can easily be argued that "the 'needs' of the many are greater than the 'wants' of a few"..

In past surveys of parents not having school age children fully vaccinated it has been found that only around 3% of parents were deliberately avoiding vaccination programmes -- the major reasons being forgetfulness, ignorance, losing the vaccination record booklet...

As for that very small number of children who can't have vaccines for medical/health reasons -- then surely it would also be in that child's own interests to keep them at home during any relevant epidemic disease outbreaks ???

For quill..

https://www.rch.org.au/immigranthealth/clinical/Tuberculosis_screening/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate

And this is why homeschooling is growing in popularity.
Enough said.

Tommy Monk wrote:For quill..

https://www.rch.org.au/immigranthealth/clinical/Tuberculosis_screening/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate

Yes, there are strong reasons for vaccination. And since, without one, you expose the whole school, schools are within their rights to deny access to students without.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:For quill..

https://www.rch.org.au/immigranthealth/clinical/Tuberculosis_screening/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate

Yes, there are strong reasons for vaccination.  And since, without one, you expose the whole school, schools are within their rights to deny access to students without.

Yes, there are strong reasons for screening of immigrants.  And without screening immigrants, you expose the whole country, countries are within their rights to deny access to disease ridden foreigners.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, there are strong reasons for vaccination.  And since, without one, you expose the whole school, schools are within their rights to deny access to students without.

Yes, there are strong reasons for screening of immigrants.  And without screening immigrants, you expose the whole country, countries are within their rights to deny access to disease ridden foreigners.

Vaccination, if done in time, is even better than screening. It is preventative...and there is no need to concern yourself.

Hiv aids has no vaccine or cure... same as drug resistant TB...


Stopping them entering the country is the best prevention...

eddie wrote:
And this is why homeschooling is growing in popularity.
Enough said.

Nonsense...

"Anti-vaxxers" are only one sub-group of home schoolers..

Others can include : fringe religions; extremist political/white supremacist beliefs; living in remote areas; maybe a particular child's health/medical condition.

What the anti-vaxxers have in common with the religious and political extremists sub-groups is an arrogant and dogmatic belief that they know better than everyone else, often allied with a deep distrust of gov'ts and authorities, and a general hatred towards their fellow man..

We eradicated TB in our country, now it's reared it's head again with unrestricted entry from Pakistan. If you think that's racist, I don't care !

nicko wrote:We eradicated TB in our country,   now it's reared it's head again with unrestricted entry from Pakistan.   If you think that's racist, I don't care !

Immigration from less well educated part of the world, where backward beliefs are still rampant, is all the more reason we should force children to be vaccinated in all British schools. It stops the potential for diseases of ANY kind and from ANY part of the world spreading in our country.

If some parents want to home school because of stupid religious views or because they think they know better than scientists then all the better for the rest of the children. But there really should be no choice, wherever the kids come from and whatever their parents' views.

nicko wrote:We eradicated TB in our country,   now it's reared it's head again with unrestricted entry from Pakistan.   If you think that's racist, I don't care !

We eliminated smallpox from the world, except for some research samples kept at the University of Birmingham Medical School.  You guessed it.  Some idiot Brit dropped a petri dish in 1978, the virus escaped, and now we have smallpox in the world again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

If you think that's racist, I don't care !  

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:We eradicated TB in our country,   now it's reared it's head again with unrestricted entry from Pakistan.   If you think that's racist, I don't care !

We eliminated smallpox from the world, except for some research samples kept at the University of Birmingham Medical School.  You guessed it.  Some idiot Brit dropped a petri dish in 1978, the virus escaped, and now we have smallpox in the world again.

If you think that's racist, I don't care !  

No dish was dropped

This was something that WHO requested work on

It wss the facilities that were not safe and why some minute particles escaped into the airducts

Why do you always lie?

birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/birmingham-mail-feature-when-birmingham-was-gripped-155391

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_smallpox_outbreak_in_the_United_Kingdom

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:We eradicated TB in our country,   now it's reared it's head again with unrestricted entry from Pakistan.   If you think that's racist, I don't care !

We eliminated smallpox from the world, except for some research samples kept at the University of Birmingham Medical School.  You guessed it.  Some idiot Brit dropped a petri dish in 1978, the virus escaped, and now we have smallpox in the world again.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

If you think that's racist, I don't care !  

Where do they have smallpox?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

We eliminated smallpox from the world, except for some research samples kept at the University of Birmingham Medical School.  You guessed it.  Some idiot Brit dropped a petri dish in 1978, the virus escaped, and now we have smallpox in the world again.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

If you think that's racist, I don't care !  

Where do they have smallpox?

Admittedly, there have only been infrequent outbreaks:

Wiki wrote:WHO first recommended destruction of the virus in 1986 and later set the date of destruction to be 30 December 1993. This was postponed to 30 June 1999.[91] Due to resistance from the U.S. and Russia, in 2002 the World Health Assembly agreed to permit the temporary retention of the virus stocks for specific research purposes.[92] Destroying existing stocks would reduce the risk involved with ongoing smallpox research; the stocks are not needed to respond to a smallpox outbreak.[93] Some scientists have argued that the stocks may be useful in developing new vaccines, antiviral drugs, and diagnostic tests;[94] a 2010 review by a team of public health experts appointed by WHO concluded that no essential public health purpose is served by the U.S. and Russia continuing to retain virus stocks.[95] The latter view is frequently supported in the scientific community, particularly among veterans of the WHO Smallpox Eradication Program.

The primary fear is that it will be developed into a weapon.

Hey Quill, asking on behalf of eddie's who's having iPad troubles - what do you mean by the new sentence in your sig, "Someone is above the rule of law in America"?

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Hey Quill, asking on behalf of eddie's who's having iPad troubles - what do you mean by the new sentence in your sig, "Someone is above the rule of law in America"?

It's a comment about the eroding nature, or compromise of the rule of law in this country. It's a creeping comment…I mean, its about something that is creeping along.  What we are seeing is the eroding of law and order, in favor of politics, with America.  A classic example is taking place right now: the Saudis are getting away with the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and Donald Trump says we should do nothing because we have political ties with the Saudis.  Think about that: we should neglect a vicious, morally corrupt murder, in favor of the deals we can make.

Of course, the ultimate sacrifice of our nation as a nation of laws, is Donald Trump himself.  He has placed an illegal Attorney General, whose only qualification is that he has made public statements against the prosecution of Trump himself.  He’s not in the line of succession, without advice & consent, so he’s likely unconstitutional (think of the motions to dismiss that will be brought by all criminals prosecuted under his tenure, saying…hey, the wrong guy brought charges!)  And he’s only there to aid and abet another criminal, Trump himself.  We will see that transpire--of that I have no doubt--but in the meantime there are all these mini-dramas doing the same thing, in the same way.  It’s like a template.

It's not even the Republicans.  The snowflake Democrats are selling out the country as much as Trump, by being so anemic about their responsibilities.  Remember, it was Obama who let Cheney go.  Wasn't that selling out law and order for political expediency?  The snowflake Democrats are doing exactly what the knuckledragging Republicans are doing.  Both doing the same thing, cheapening America, only for different reasons...but both having the same effect.

Think of it as there being a fund of integrity in America, and each time we compromise in these battles, we deplete that fund.  Think of what that means...to deplete one's integrity.  Or, in in more graphic terms, are we not becoming a banana republic?  And the snowflakes' efforts are doing as much to re-frame normalcy, as the Republican's efforts.

eddie wrote:And this is why homeschooling is growing in popularity.
Enough said.

Yeah, Children definitely should be removed from those parents
It's Child Abuse end of story 

Parents DO NOT know best Parents Are generally Fucking Dumb without the slightest fucking clue on what is best for their child

Bullshit !