Login / Join
Australian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers.
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 5584
- 9 Comments
Vaccination and migration law "No jab no stay" policy?
Recently there has been a lot of media hype around children and vaccination. Do parents always have the final word on whether or not to vaccinate their children? On Tuesday 29 April 2014 at 5:30PM the ABC Radio Law Report hosted a programme on 'Vaccination and the Law'.
Essentially the programme covered what happens if parents disagree on whether to vaccinate their children and at what point the court steps in when there are disputes on vaccination? My question is this:
Should unvaccinated people, including children who are moving to Australia given a right to 'choose' not to vaccinate their children and themselves from deadly illnesses before they enter the migration zone?
Is it one thing for Australian citizens to choose not to vaccinate their children, but quite another for Australian government authorities to allow access across our soverign borders by unvaccinated people without good medical reason?
Recently, courts and tribunals have had the final word on disputes about misleading information on the risks of vaccination. We also have a rule in NSW, '"no jab no play". Should new legislation put in place which covers new migrants, visitors and other temporary visa holders which essentially amounts to "No jab no stay"?
Should Australian citizens and permanent residents have their lives put at risk by persons entering Australia who might be carrying deadly and preventable diseases from anywhere in the world?
On April the 9th 2014 Bernard Keane published an article on Crikey called "A case of harmful speech: Should we ban anti-vaccination talk? The following is information from within that article:
"There are better examples of speech that causes harm than the ones we’re debating in relation to the Racial Discrimination Act. What about the anti-vaxxers?
While the government’s proposals to amend section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act have prompted considerable debate, it hasn’t been particularly useful debate — plenty of heat and not much light, as Tim Soutphommasane described it, and people taking more or less standard positions — the Left strongly opposed, middle-aged white men (like me) supportive.
But what sort of speech should be banned, if we agree that all speech short of that which leads to, or is intended to cause, actual harm, is permitted?
“… there’s a particular form of speech in Australia that does, demonstrably, cause harm: anti-vaccination propaganda.”
But there’s a particular form of speech in Australia that does, demonstrably, cause harm: anti-vaccination propaganda. Unlike other forms of denialism, vaccination denialism kills. It has a provable body count, in terms of the number of children who die from preventable diseases either because their own parents have refused to vaccinate them, or because, despite their own parents doing the right thing and vaccinating them, they were exposed to an unvaccinated child while only partially protected, or because they were babies too young for their shots and they have been exposed to unvaccinated children.....
....To the extent that the lies of anti-vaccination campaigners influence a small number of parents to not vaccinate their children, it leads to the deaths of children from preventable diseases and leads to the illnesses and hospitalisation of others. It is speech that causes harm — and death.......
....On that basis, should anti-vaccination speech be banned? It’s a hard case: one is loath to add to the conspiracy theories and sense of persecution of people who are either sublimely stupid or who in their inner-suburban affluence believe they’re too good for vaccination, and don’t want to be part of any herd whose immunity is critical. Moreover, in many cases anti-vaxxers genuinely believe the lies they spout about Big Pharma conspiracies, autism and chemicals. None of them mean to cause harm; they just wilfully refuse to see the harm they cause.....
....A better response might be to stop facilitating denialism first before starting to ban it. The denialist “Australian Vaccination Network” was forced to change its name and recently (finally) lost its charity status. Queensland Health Minister Lawrence Springborg has commendably raised the issue of making it significantly harder for parents to claim “conscientious objection” status. We should go further and ensure parents who, without medical approval (some kids can’t be vaccinated safely), refuse vaccination do not receive family tax benefits, as proposed by Kevin Rudd before last year’s election. The media — especially television networks — could stop pretending there’s a “debate” about vaccination. That might help stop the death toll inflicted by the anti-vaccination lobby better than banning what they say."
Instead of banning what persons seeking entry to Australia 'say', surely we could be simply looking to ban their entry to Australia without a certificate from an approved doctor which sets out detailed reasons why that person cannot be vaccinated. After all, what comes first? Overseas nationals and their rights not to vaccinate their children, or our rights to protect the health and lives of Australians on our own soil?
It "No jab no stay" a fair call?
Comments
-
Thursday, 01 May 2014No jab no visa I say. Why should we let unimmunised foreign nationals who live outside Australia, or Australians who live outside Australia for that matter, to come here and give our country's children illnesses and death. Good article Liana and about time someone spoke up about this very important issue. Perhaps we could also set up an assurance of support or payment scheme for Australians who refuse to immunise which goes into a pool of money and given to kids who catch preventable illnesses? After all it's only the unimmunised ones passing this stuff on, like to whooping couch victim babies who die. Perhaps if parents had to pay money out instead of immunise their decision might be a bit harder. Also they should not get medicare to fix their kids health if the kid gets a preventable disease. They should have to pay for their stupid decision.
· Liana - Allan likes this comment. -
Thursday, 01 May 2014
Honestly why isn't Australia already doing this? Good article Liana. At least someone is thinking about the health of our families here in Australia.
· Liana - Allan likes this comment. -
Thursday, 01 May 2014
I have seen over the last ten years more than one case per year of migrating families coming here with a serious transmittable illness that should have been spotted by immigration authorities. The families would have been halted at the border in Hong Kong or Singapore. In each case that I know, medical practitioners rose to the challenge, segregated the patient from the community and cured the patient. Immunisation is a different matter. Jabs do not cure, they assist in prevention. There are all sorts of reasons given by Australians (inside the border) to not be vaccinated or to not have their children vaccinated. It seems clear that we have to make some sort of societal decision on whether people outside the border who are otherwise welcome here should be excluded for refusing to do something with their bodies or their children's bodies that Australians are currently not forced to do. I call your attention to the current pneumonia epidemic. It is a killer disease. However, the person entering the country is not carrying the disease. (And the immigration medical officers never seem to get it right on bacterial and viral infections.) Forcing that person to vaccinate as a precondition to entry may not help public health. There are parallels here to other public health prevention programs, fluoride in the water supply, for example. As silly as it sounds, should we restrict skilled entry visa grants to people from countries that have fluoridated their water supply? Everyone would probably say no, dental diseases are not transmittable. However, they actually can be transmitted, and they are often the basis the spread of other illness in the population.
Personally, I favour vaccination. I just don't know if I favour it as strongly as the drug companies favour it.
Thank you for that post. It is an important topic.· Liana - Allan likes this comment. -
Thursday, 01 May 2014
I was a supporter of immunisations and all my children had all their shots however I am now not so sure that i did the right thing, To ban people from raising concerns about the practice is dangerous. Medical doctors and chemical companies are not always right. To ban people from speaking out against vaccinations is wrong; just as wrong as it would be to refuse debate about fluoride, global warming or marriage laws.
-
Thursday, 01 May 2014
Let's be a bit circumspect here... the problem with the notion that unvaccinated (for the purpose of this reply) foreigners giving Australians illnesses, spreading germs and whatever else is a bit over the top. One would find (and I am MORE than happy to be corrected PUBLICLY) that the majority of people who come to Australia are vaccinated in one way or another, particularly those from countries where vaccination is compulsory. Yes, we are an island in between oceans but let's not promote the 'fortress mentality' where we need to be protected from 'them'.
I support vaccination and strongly support a program of compulsory vaccinations to be had before travelling to ANYWHERE, not just to Australia. There's nothing wrong with requiring migrants to do so - it's not new; 40 years ago my family and I got 'jabbed' and prodded as a requirement of permanent migration, even as 10 pound migrants and this health aspects still remains, though I am not sure how vigorously implemented (an answer to this would be most welcomed)
Australia's immigration program is already fairly restrictive when it comes to health issues. I agree with Michael, vaccination is a preventer of disease, it doesn't cure it. We know, for example, that refugees often have to go through a suite of preventative measures before but mostly after arrival to deal with potential public health issues - Australia is pretty good at managing this.
Damien Carrick's Law Report program on ABC Radio National explored the reasons why some Australians refused to vaccinate their children, the discredited research on vaccinations causing Autism by Wakefield and Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network and how the courts deal with such cases brought brought before them. As to whether 'anti-vaccination talk' should be dealt with under s18(c) of the racial discrimination Act is neither here nor there...
In terms of banning people from entering Australia for what they say, David Irvin comes to mind and perhaps Wakefield should be banned for all the grief his fraudulent article caused but bans can always be tested and lifted...
And so, I would be more worried about some in our OWN population who are against vaccination (for themselves and their unsuspecting and unfortunate children) and illnesses such as whooping cough and measles being on the rise thanks to these lunatics. As with everything, there is a risk. Taking a flu shot 7 weeks ago, I reacted badly and was sick for two weeks because of it, but that's nothing compared to the impact of getting the flu and giving it to those around me.
It's s not third world or developing countries' migrants we should worry about (contrary to popular belief), it's first world migrants with lots of tourism dollars who agree with these vaccination skeptics and don't vaccinate so when there's an outbreak of something, they're not protected and have the potential to spread stuff around to those Australians who are not protected either.
There is nothing stopping the government to formally establish a minimum standard for migrants which includes the vaccinations expected to be had by Australians and this would be supported, provided that it mirrors the same system that we have for our own population. There's enough grief caused when there's a double standard, often impossible to meet and unfair in the context of migration.
It's fairly well documented that in a globalised world, a compulsory framework for anything cannot be sustained and evetually fails (as we find with exempt vaccination certificates in Australia) and as trade agreements and political might being what they are, compulsory vaccination for anyone entering Australia will also fail - who gets jab and who doesn't? do we determine this by passport, by country of birth, by residence in the last 5, 10 or 30 years or how well travelled people are? that WILL be the question (and a nightmare for online tourist visa applications)
A minimum standard and a viable and reportable follow up through medicare after arrival is probably the go, like the health undertakings. Whether that takes off, is another story... -
Friday, 02 May 2014
Ashfield Mall and Strathfield Plaza shoppers are being warned to look out for the symptoms of measles by the Health Department
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/inner-west/ashfield-mall-and-strathfield-plaza-shoppers-are-being-warned-to-look-out-for-the-symptoms-of-measles-by-the-health-department/story-fngr8h4f-1226901840219
" Sydney Local Health District Director of Public Health, Dr Leena Gupta, said there had been an increase in cases of measles in NSW this year as a result of susceptible travellers becoming infected while overseas and returning home with symptoms.
Adults and children who are unvaccinated or partially vaccinated are most at risk, she said.
“The measles virus is highly contagious and is spread through the air by someone who is unwell with the disease,” she said" -
Friday, 02 May 2014
Interesting and relevant topic considering the re-emergence of diseases that had almost been eradicated from the developed world.
I am surprised that this thread has not gone viral yet and been bombarded with propaganda and misinformation from the anti vaccination movement. -
Friday, 02 May 2014
The members of the 'anti vacination movement" have the right to their opinion and others have the obligation to research their claims before making comments calling these opinions
ropaganda and misinformation." As I mentioned earlier in this thread I allowed all my children to be vacinated but after meeting children who have been damaged by intection I would do much more research if I had young children today. Vacinations are not always safe and some children suffer for life because of them - we need to decide, as individuals, if the benefits outway the risks. Forced immunisation is a path I do not want. If the government says, "no jab no visa", then that is something else for the individual person to decide; is it worth the risk, does the benefit of a visa outweigh the possible danger? I personaly distrust the Pharacutical companies because of the huge profit motive they have to keep introducing new and 'better' vacines.
Immigration blog
It should be against the law for parents not to immunise their kids in Australia without a medical reason. Just like kids have to go to school it should also be law that they have to be immunised. Otherwise they can be home-schooled. Also, no engagement in clubs or sporting associations should be tolerated for selfish people who refuse to immunise their kids because of some strange reason. For all those people with religious or other beliefs, go and start up schools just for people who believe the same thing and infect each other. Stay away from our kids and of course, don't let unimmunised people come here and spread their germs and infections from Asia, Africa, Middle East, Russia, South America and Europe to our vulnerable newborn babies and elderly who haven't finished their immunisation schedules yet. I agree with "NO JAB NO STAY". I want it to be 'NO JAB NO WAY".