Michigan mother jailed for refusing to vaccinate her son

–BBC

A mother in the US state of Michigan has been sentenced to seven days in jail after she refused a judge’s order to have her son vaccinated. Rebecca Bredow would not let her nine-year-old be immunised after initially agreeing with the father to do so.

Her ex-husband has now been awarded temporary primary custody in order to get the boy the jab.
Michigan parents are legally allowed to skip or delay their children’s vaccinations due to personal beliefs.
But Bredow fell foul of the law because she reneged on agreements with her former spouse dating back to November 2016 to have the boy immunised.

The mother-of-two was sentenced on Wednesday for contempt of court after flouting a court order last week to have her son vaccinated.

She and her ex-husband decided at the time of their child’s birth that they would space out and delay jabs for their son.

The couple separated in 2008, according to ABC News, but they shared parental custody and the father still wanted the boy vaccinated.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

SOURCE BBC

I really don't like this forcing vaccinations on children . The vaccinations may be perfectly safe - but who's to say later in life complications won't occur .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:I really don't like this forcing vaccinations on children . The vaccinations may be perfectly safe - but who's to say later in life complications won't occur .

Well what is the reality of not vaccinating?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/08/health/measles-minnesota-somali-anti-vaccine-bn/index.html

What you have to ask is whether that parents is truly placing the best interest of that child.

Where even worse people with limited medical knowledge are going against the best precautions, based on paranoia whipped up around the web by the anti-vaccine brigade

What parents are doing, is placing their children irresponsible at risk

what was the vaccination for i didn't see what it was unless i missed it ?

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:what was the vaccination for i didn't see what it was unless i missed it ?

What does it matter what it was for?

You see, the problem with many people who buy into those who lie on the web, is that they have no conception of history Dibs. When many children who never had the chance of vaccinations. Died in mass numbers, as vaccine preventable diseases have been a major cause of illness, death, and disability throughout human history.

You see how people have overcome a fear here.

Because now we vaccinate many of these diseases. That nobody now understands how devastating they once were. They then stupidly place their children at risk, based on this ignorance of history.

It's wrong to force vaccinations on anyone - it does matter what they are for actually .

There is no certainty that a certain vaccine might not suit some people they may get bad side effects or even die nobody knows .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:It's wrong to force vaccinations on anyone - it does matter what they are for actually .

There is no certainty that a certain vaccine might not suit some people they may get bad side effects or even die nobody knows .

So there you go.

You have no conception of why not vaccinating, once saw many children die.

You then say its wrong to protect children by ensuring they are protected. Saying that its wrong to protect people from harm, by claiming they should never have this proection ensured by law
So you use the poor same old lame argument

Some people might get effected.

Shall we use that belief also when treating people when ill, incase they may become infected with something else?

Or is the view point, that it saves countless more lives by a massive margin, than it can effect some people?

The fact you place that as a reason to not vaccinate. Shows you have no understanding how many children died from the likes of Polio etc

You only now see how rarely this may effect some children by having a vaccination. You cannot use empathic intelligence to see how once, countless children actually died, because they never had any protection with a vaccination

So what would you rather Dibs?

Mass children dead

Or sadly and rarely some having side effects?

You are a really nasty geranium aren't you Wolfie, Do you hate all women?

That reckless and maniacal halfwit of a mother was jailed for 7 days for "holding the court in contempt"...

I reckon she got off lightly..

After all,  she has a track record of contempt against her ex-husband, her son, the law in general and the welfare of the wider community, as well as ignoring court orders.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:It's wrong to force vaccinations on anyone - it does matter what they are for actually .

There is no certainty that a certain vaccine might not suit some people they may get bad side effects or even die nobody knows .

Gees you're full of shit,  VoD...

When are you going to stop giving your lying, blah blah blah blah blah cow.

Good morning - Great to see you posting again i hope you are well and life is treating you well . Take care and have a wonderful day Jesus loves you so much and so do I xx

nicko wrote:You are a really nasty geranium aren't you Wolfie,    Do you hate all women?

Nicko I don't think he hates anyone but himself - nothing nice ever comes out of his mouth - most of what he posts is gibberish and childish - that's why I don't take him seriously I always bless him its the only way - showing love and kindness is always the best treatment - especially to my enemies

I agree with Vod....I think parents should be the ones who make the decisions re vaccinations.
As long as they have all the relevant information and advice to hand.....its their choice.

Syl wrote:I agree with Vod....I think parents should be the ones who make the decisions re vaccinations.
As long as they have all the relevant information and advice to hand.....its their choice.

And there is a perfect example of an argument from ignorance

Parents do not know what is best medically for a child in main, as they are not medically trained. We have people trained medically to advise what is best and what do parents do?

Think they know better and place not only their own children at risk but countless others.

So where does this ignorance stem from.

From the fact they fear more the rarely possible side effects to that of the known historical facts. Where countless children have died from such deseases and because they have never seen this. Yet have seen how side effects rom the vaccine rarely does effect some children. They come to the most idiotic and irrational view. That their child is going to be better off not vacinnated from such killer deseases. Thus stupidly placing their own child at risk

Its why parents certainly like here, do not know what is best for their children, because as seen they act like idiots

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:I agree with Vod....I think parents should be the ones who make the decisions re vaccinations.
As long as they have all the relevant information and advice to hand.....its their choice.

And there is a perfect example of an argument from ignorance

Parents do not know what is best medically for a child in main, as they are not medically trained. We have people trained medically to advise what is best and what do parents do?

Think they know better and place not only their own children at risk but countless others.

So where does this ignorance stem from.

From the fact they fear more the rarely possible side effects to that of the known historical facts. Where countless children have died from such deseases and because they have never seen this. Yet have seen how rarely this does effect some children. They come to the most idiotic and irrational view. That their child is going to be better off not vacinnated from such killer deseases. Thus stupidly placing their own child at risk

Its why parents certainly like here, do not know what is best for their children, because as seen they act like idiots

So far the BMA disagree with you.

"Doctors say no compulsory vaccines

Doctors leaders have rejected the idea of compulsory immunisation for children in the UK, according to a new report.

The British Medical Association has published a report on childhood immunisation on the eve of its annual conference.
It calls on doctors and health workers to stress to parents that vaccination is the safest and most effective way to protect children from infectious disease.

They should therefore be encouraged to choose immunisation for their children.

However the BMA said it did not support the idea of compulsory vaccinations.

BMA Chairman Dr Ian Bogle said: "We have looked carefully at the issue of compulsory vaccination and it is true that some countries do operate immunisation programmes where there is some degree of compulsion.
"However the BMA does not think this would be right for the United Kingdom.
"The doctor-patient relationship is based on trust, choice and openness and we think introducing compulsory vaccination may be harmful to this."

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


And there is a perfect example of an argument from ignorance

Parents do not know what is best medically for a child in main, as they are not medically trained. We have people trained medically to advise what is best and what do parents do?

Think they know better and place not only their own children at risk but countless others.

So where does this ignorance stem from.

From the fact they fear more the rarely possible side effects to that of the known historical facts. Where countless children have died from such deseases and because they have never seen this. Yet have seen how rarely this does effect some children. They come to the most idiotic and irrational view. That their child is going to be better off not vacinnated from such killer deseases. Thus stupidly placing their own child at risk

Its why parents certainly like here, do not know what is best for their children, because as seen they act like idiots

The BMA disagree with you.

"Doctors say no compulsory vaccines

Doctors leaders have rejected the idea of compulsory immunisation for children in the UK, according to a new report.

The British Medical Association has published a report on childhood immunisation on the eve of its annual conference.
It calls on doctors and health workers to stress to parents that vaccination is the safest and most effective way to protect children from infectious disease.

They should therefore be encouraged to choose immunisation for their children.

However the BMA said it did not support the idea of compulsory vaccinations.

BMA Chairman Dr Ian Bogle said: "We have looked carefully at the issue of compulsory vaccination and it is true that some countries do operate immunisation programmes where there is some degree of compulsion.
"However the BMA does not think this would be right for the United Kingdom.
"The doctor-patient relationship is based on trust, choice and openness and we think introducing compulsory vaccination may be harmful to this."

And how does that make their view right?

We are talking about the lives of children here and people who argue from ignorance like you. Who think you know best, want to make decisions, you are not qualified to do so.

If this was a Jehovah Witness who denied their own child a life saving blood transfusion, which then saw their child die. That would rightly be called negligence and manslaughter.

Where a parents refuses to vaccinate their child and this child then contracts a deadly desease and then other children die, because of their negligence. Should be held to account the same way. As their ignorance and false belief, costs children their lives

Prents who think they know best are wrong and arrogant, because they do not. Parenting is a continual learning curve, with each new day, bringing its own challenges. If you buy a new car, you seek advice how well to maitian this, so it reduces the risk of this breaking down. You seek that advice from people qualified. 

Vaccines should be compulsary.

Lives matter, not your stupid pride over what you think is it right.

Also you were being disingenious about the BMA were you not Syl, when this is being debated as we speak.

As how old was your link?

I had my son vaccinated...lets be clear on that.

However vaccinations are offered and advice is given, persuasive advice for parents who are undecided.
All parents want to do the best for their child, but ultimately it is the parents right to decide.
The law says so, the BMA say so.....and whether you like that or not, that is how it is at present in the UK.

Didge wrote:Also you were being disingenious about the BMA were you not Syl, when this is being debated as we speak.

As how old was your link?

It is being debated, and the link had no date on it.
I added 'so far' and 'at present' to my posts.
This is how the law stands now....since that report was published the law has not changed.

Syl wrote:I had my son vaccinated...lets be clear on that.

However vaccinations are offered and advice is given, persuasive advice for parents who are undecided.
All parents want to do the best for their child, but ultimately it is the parents right to decide.
The law says so, the BMA say so.....and whether you like that or not, that is how it is at present in the UK.

1) So what. You are saying parents should make an uneducated decision over the safety of their own child.

That is plain ignorant.

2) So it should not be the parents choice as mainly they will not in many cases be able to make a rational decision, it will based emotionally. You may want to look at many other EU countries that are introducing manditory vaccinations and thank goodness.

The sooner we make it compulsary that children should have protection from diseases, the better.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:I had my son vaccinated...lets be clear on that.

However vaccinations are offered and advice is given, persuasive advice for parents who are undecided.
All parents want to do the best for their child, but ultimately it is the parents right to decide.
The law says so, the BMA say so.....and whether you like that or not, that is how it is at present in the UK.

1) So what. You are saying parents should make an uneducated decision over the safety of their own child.

That is plain ignorant.

2) So it should not be the parents choice as mainly they will not in many cases be able to make a rational decision, it will based emotionally. You may want to look at many other EU countries that are introducing manditory vaccinations and thank goodness.

The sooner we make it compulsary that children should have protection from diseases, the better.

What next? Do you want to go back from making schooling co

Do you want to live in a country where a parents every right over their own children are taken away from them?

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


1) So what. You are saying parents should make an uneducated decision over the safety of their own child.

That is plain ignorant.

2) So it should not be the parents choice as mainly they will not in many cases be able to make a rational decision, it will based emotionally. You may want to look at many other EU countries that are introducing manditory vaccinations and thank goodness.

The sooner we make it compulsary that children should have protection from diseases, the better.

What next? Do you want to go back from making schooling co

Do you want to live in a country where a parents every right over their own children are taken away from them?

Absurd and piss poor misdirection argument.

Nobody is arguing against parents having all their rights taken away.

It shows again you are driven not by reason, but by emotion.

We already have for example compulsary schooling for children. So are you going to argue now that parents should have the right to stop their children going to school?

Its compulsary that all babies have regular health checks. Do you want this stopped?

To me, to not vaccinate your child is tantamount to child abuse.

Not only does it place their own child at risk, but also others, with the worse case scenario being a fatality.

I mean I can even give you an economical argument, why it should be compulsary.

For starters, its far cheaper to vaccinate, than have children unvaccinated and contract such deseases. Which with such an outbreak. See hospitals unable to cope with the number of those effected. With a knock on effect countless other patients then not receiving the emergency medical attention they need. Thus even more people die, because the medical system, are unable to cope with so many people ill. Which then creates insurance claims on negligence on the hospitals.. Who were not really at fault, but will have to pay out hundreds of Millions. Simple as they could not save lives, brought about because of the stupid and irresponsible decisions of some parents. Who refused to vaccinate their children.

Now not only does it cost far more money for people to be in Hospital to the NHS, when more people end up needing Hospital care, but as seen will effect the capacity capabilities of these facilities.

That is why it should be compulsary

Mainly as many are in debt due to their irresponsiblity with money, as they live beyond their means, but it also more so costs the country and even more so, would cause the unnecessary lives of countless others

I am grateful we already have the power to take children away from poor and abusive parents.

If you think that is wrong, then you would clearly back the right to defend child abuse.

Think about it.

uhm...it is NOT compulsary to "send" your child to school" ....

Lord Foul wrote:uhm...it is NOT compulsary to "send" your child to school" ....

Have schooling then muppet

For fuck sake

Happy now?

nicko wrote:
You are a really nasty geranium aren't you Wolfie,    Do you hate all women?

I don't know how you come to that conclusion, nicko !!!

First off, I only abuse that minority of unladylike females on here who are either rude, racist, fascist -- or in VoD's case a criminally-minded scamster..

Secondly, as I abuse more males than I do females on here, you can hardly genuinely accuse me of being unfair in that regard -- as unlike some others on here, my insults are neither gender nor racially based.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

nicko wrote:You are a really nasty geranium aren't you Wolfie,    Do you hate all women?

Nicko  I don't think he hates anyone but himself - nothing nice ever comes out of his mouth - most of what he posts is gibberish and childish - that's why I don't take him seriously I always bless him its the only way - showing love and kindness is always the best treatment - especially to my enemies

Fuck off with your lying shit,  you disgusting little trolling con_artist...

Go sell some more of your fake vitamin C and "right thinking" cancer cures..

You should have had your scamming arse locked away years ago.

I think I just proved my point !

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


That reckless and maniacal halfwit of a mother was jailed for 7 days for "holding the court in contempt"...

I reckon she got off lightly..

After all,  she has a track record of contempt against her ex-husband, her son, the law in general and the welfare of the wider community, as well as ignoring court orders.

I wonder what nutter 'redded' the above comment ???

It's not like I insulted anyone on here..

Seems someone just can't handle a few "home truths".

nicko wrote:
I think I just proved my point !

Nope,  not at all...

Simple maths,  nicko  --  the number of women I "hate" I can count on one hand;  for the number of men that I actually "hate" (and for good reasons..) I would need both hands..

The type of people in general that I strongly detest (rather than actually "hating" with a vengeance) are both in relative minorities among humankind, fortunately, and are not gender based  --  those 'types' includes corporate criminals, hard-core fascists and racists,  hatemongers and fearmongers, wilful environmental vandals, serious bullies, child and animal abusers, health-scamsters and medical quacks.        

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

nicko wrote:
You are a really nasty geranium aren't you Wolfie,    Do you hate all women?

I don't know how you come to that conclusion,  nicko  !!!

First off,  I only abuse that minority of unladylike females on here who are either rude, racist, fascist --  or in VoD's case a criminally-minded scamster..

Secondly, as I abuse more males than I do females on here,  you can hardly genuinely accuse me of being unfair in that regard --  as unlike some others on here, my insults are neither gender nor racially based.

Haha...I misread that. I thought you said "criminally-minded seamstress." Reminded me of Myron-Myron's mom, who sewed buttons for some designer outta New York City.