Vaccinations minus parental rights equals big controversial issue. Should a 12 year old be given the authority to make health decisions that will affect the rest of his or her life? California’s Assembly Bill 499, which has already been passed by the California senate, will allow 12 year old children to decide to receive Gardasil, Hepatitis B and other vaccines or medications to prevent STDs in the future without their parents’ consent. The bill is currently waiting for the governor’s action this month.
Not only is the subject of taking away a parent’s right to consent for their minor child an issue, but so is the mixed information and controversy about the safety of vaccines -- especially to youngsters.
So let’s take a look at both the defense and the opposition towards this bill.
One argument in support of the bill is that the increase and implementation of immunizations would prevent the spread of disease and decrease cases of certain types of cervical cancers and STDs. If all went as planned, this would indeed reach the ultimate goal of public health -- to decrease the spread of disease for the largest population possible.
Another argument for the bill explains that this is a time-sensitive matter. The younger we can vaccinate individuals for certain types of STDs, the more positive and widespread the results would be.
On the other hand, as with all vaccinations and medical interventions, every body reacts differently.
Although we know that this is the case, we must consider the negative facts about Gardasil and vaccines in general. The harmful ingredients often found in vaccines, such as mercury and other chemical additives, have been shown to cause many negative side effects.
With the Gardasil vaccine, there are a handful of negative side effects including, but not limited to: nausea, pain, fever, and fainting (which are not considered to be “serious side effects”).
“Serious” effects include, but are not limited to: permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness and even death.