Many childhood diseases can now be prevented through the use of vaccines. Should parents be made by law to immunise their children against common diseases or should individuals have the right to choose not to immunise their children?

The question of whether we should oblige parents to immunise their children against common diseases is a social rather than a medical one. Since we are free to choose what we eat or drink or how much exercise we take, why should the medical treatment we decide to undergo be any different? Medical researchers and governments are primarily interested in overall statistics and trends and in money-saving schemes, which fail to take into consideration the individual's concerns and rights. While immunisation against diseases

such

as tetanus and whooping cough may be effective, little information is released about the harmful effects of vaccinations, which can sometimes result in growth problems in children or even death.

In

addition there

Accept comma addition

addition, there

is the issue of the rights of the individual. As members of a society, why should we be obliged to subject our children to

this

potentially harmful practice? Some people may

also

be against immunisation on religious grounds and their needs must be considered when any decisions are made. In conclusion

,

Accept space

,

for these reasons I feel strongly that immunisation programmes should not be obligatory and that the individual should have the right to choose whether or not to participate.