No, not a good idea I would think.
Primary schools will be compelled to demand proof that pupils have had a full range of jabs – including measles, mumps and rubella – before allowing them to register.
It\’s one thing to say that children should be vaccinated, another to insist that they must.
The ideas have yet to be discussed with the Prime Minister, who is expected to react cautiously. Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the BMA, said forcing parents to have children immunised was "morally and ethically dubious" and would go "beyond the nanny state to a police state".
He said: "A Stalinist approach like this would be likely to backfire on an unprecedented scale, and to increase opposition to vaccinations."
There is that, the political objection.
The Labour proposal is modelled on a compulsory system in America, where parents are threatened with jail if children are not immunised.
Hmm, I rather doubt that….for the vaccination programs in the US are done by the States. Thus, as federalism rather requires, there are many different systems. One of the more common is that vaccinations are indeed required before entering the public school systems. Yes, this has added (however little) to the home schooling movement.
So, practical arguments against it, civil liberties ones as well. There\’s also the point that certain groups are morally opposed to certain of the jabs. For example, the new MMR uses a culture taken from an aborted foetus to create the rubella part of it. The official position of the Catholic Church was (at least it was, whether it still is I don\’t know) that good cannot come from an evil deed and that thus that specific vaccine should not be used by Catholics. I\’m sure there are other religious groups with objections to one, more or all of them (do Jehovah\’s Witnesses vaccinate?).
Finally, there\’s a large group (for some meaning of large: in this case, too big to ignore politically) of children who shouldn\’t be vaccinated at all: those with weakened immune systems for example.
Mandatory vaccination therefore won\’t really work: not unless there are a series of opt out clauses. Whjich, given the size of some of the groups, means that we\’ll not be far off where we are now.