Vaccination oral presentation feedback, no jab- no pay.

[teganmoore6]

Hey guys,
please give me some feedback on my piece. I understand most people will disagree with me on my view, and that is perfectly fine, however I am not asking for your viewpoint, just advice on my writing. It is only a draft, so will be a little rough, but I'm feeling quite lost at the moment due to a lack of assistance/information from my school. So please feel free to point me in the right direction, without being nasty
Thanks,
Tegan.
oral below-




'Should families that refuse vaccinations be denied government benefits for their children?' This question has been publicized in numerous forms of previous, current and most likely future media coverages. For me, personally, the answer is simple; no, they should not. Yet for others, the facts and figures are not so clear, making it difficult for them to come to a conclusion. And that is why I'm here today.
 To outline the reasons exactly why financially blackmailing families who have every right to 'refuse' vaccinations is wrong. Why families should be allowed to hold beliefs without being forcefully corrupted by our government, why families should be allowed to determine their children's medications, why families should have the right to fear the risks associated with vaccines and why the policy is outright unnecessary. 

Argument 1:
In Australia, parents are legally able to determine the medications their children receive. Within an advice document produced in April 2010, by the Medical Insurance Group of Australia (MIGA), it was stated 'In general, a minor (less than 18 years) requires consent from a parent or guardian before treatment can commence, with the exception of an emergency or where treatment is of a minor nature.'
 Vaccinations do not fall into the exceptional categories, as they are neither an immediately life-saving treatment, nor are they a minor procedure; meaning parental consent is required. The controversy surrounding this policy is remarkable. A right that should be automatic is being loaded with all sorts of penalties. Parents legally have every right to refuse vaccinations. How can our government dictate that child benefits should be cut for unvaccinated children, when the same government sanctioned the previously quoted document, in 2010 with full knowledge that this would allow for the legal refusal of vaccines by families? 

Argument 2:
Individuals should have the right to follow their religion and its rules without being compromised by the government's proposed blackmail policy. Although Australia has not yet made vaccines compulsory, choosing to not vaccinate your child or children is made almost impossible. There are several religions in which vaccines contradict members beliefs. For example, Christian Scientists, who believe that the body is sacred and should not receive certain chemicals, blood or tissues and should only be healed by God or natural means.
 As of the 1st of January 2016 religious exemptions for unvaccinated children were disregarded, meaning children unvaccinated for religious reasons will be denied child benefits of up to $15,000, unless they agree to vaccinate before the 31st of December 2016. As a free country, which is said to be accepting, respectful and non-discriminative this policy is far from 'Australian'. 

Argument 3:
Recent surveys on Australian immunisation rates prove the policy unnecessary. Statistics have shown that just a mere 3% of Australian families would be affected by the policy; many of which do not fall within the low income category. Proving the penalty for not vaccinating your children ineffective, statistics show that immunisation rates are steady at 92%. As the vast majority of Australian children are vaccinated, there should be no concern for the 1.77% of unvaccinated children.
For if your child is vaccinated and if you hold great faith in vaccines, then you should have no issues with your children being exposed to either disease or unvaccinated children. Once compared to the statistics, it becomes evident that the policy is a great over-reaction and that it is simply unnecessary.

Argument 4:
Vaccines come with great risks and have the potential to harm and even kill children. Families deserve the right to protect their children from the risks associated with vaccines without being compromised financially. If completely vaccinated, children are vaccinated for 42 different diseases via 35 individual needles within the first four years of their lives. All vaccinations contain toxins, chemicals and many forms of carcinogens. Injecting these into the body of an underdeveloped child can put your child at risk of severe reaction, disease or even death.
 The risks of vaccines are rarely publicized and when they are its to a minimum, to hide the facts that vaccines are something to not only think about, but also to be concerned about. Here are a few of the risks for example: anaphylaxis, susceptibility to disease, Febrile convulsions, paralysis or even death. You should not be obliged in any way to put your child's health at risk due to your financial situation.

Conclusion:
The withdrawal of child benefits for unvaccinated children is unfair. Parents literally have the legal right to refuse vaccines for their children; they should definitely not be compromised for their decisions. Not only should parents have a choice for personal reasons, their beliefs and ethical boundaries should also be respected. With Australia being one of the most immunised countries in the world, the policy is continuously being proven unnecessary. For some $15,000 goes a very long way; towards education, health care and other necessities. No family should be penalised for a decision they have every right to make.
 

[amigos]

Hey teganmoore6, I only got through half of it before I had leave but the feedback is attached anyways. Hopefully someone else can finish off the rest!

[teganmoore6]

Thankyou so much for your help!

[vox nihili]

On your writing:

You should never "write" a speech. Speeches are spoken so the process of preparing one should be spoken, too. So when you sit down to write a speech, say what you're writing out loud, so that you can hear how it sounds. At times this speech sounds like a bit of an essay and makes really clunky transitions between points. These could be avoided if you followed that advice, with a particular focus on how to make things sound convincing. You obviously feel very passionate about this topic, which is really helpful to make a great speech. So by making it more conversational and less like an essay, you inject more of that passion into what you say and get more people to come along with you.



On your arguments: a great deal of your mark comes down to your ability to demonstrate careful research and a thoughtful exploration of the topic. I can see that you're quite concerned about how people might react to this, and you clearly know that your view about vaccines is a minority view. You could certainly improve your speech by bearing these facts in mind when you write it.

Your arguments, I think, do little to explore the topic well. These arguments and that way you've put them would do well to convince someone who already doesn't like vaccines, but I don't think they would really shift people's perspectives. It would really be worthwhile to consider how to frame the point in a way that even those who don't share your views about vaccines themselves might be convinced that no jab, no pay is a bad idea.


For some personal context, I actually have some reservations that no jab, no pay is a bad idea. You're right in saying that it denies parent's freedom to decide what's best for their child. I think it also unfairly shifts the blame on low income families, despite the fact that they actually tend to be better vaccinated than high income families, who are obviously unaffected by this policy.


Argument 3/4:

You quote some statistics (source?) in argument 3 and then make a bit of a maths error. You say that the vaccination rate is 92% but that only 2% of children are unvaccinated? These clearly don't add up.

You also suggest in argument 3 that no parent should be worried about diseases if they believe in vaccines. This is a ridiculous statement. Many children are too young to be vaccinated (e.g. can't vaccinate for measles before age 1) and fewer children are unable to be vaccinated due to illness, such as acquired immunodeficiencies and some cancers. Lower vaccination rates mean that these children are at greater risk of contracting vaccine-preventable disease, which is particularly concerning because they are often more dangerous in this group.

In argument 4, you make the same error you criticise those supporting vaccines do: you hide the evidence. You bemoan the fact that vaccines' risks are not presented correctly, then go on to present them incorrectly. You also fail at any point to acknowledge the enormous benefit of vaccines, which has seen a generation of people—particularly those from poorer countries—free of diseases such as smallpox, and for most of the world now polio. Suggesting that by vaccinating your child you put them at risk is highly gratuitous. No fair and reasoned assessment of the risks and benefits of vaccines could arrive at the conclusion that refusing vaccination is the safer option. You do yourself a disservice by failing to do your research properly, and your class a disservice by inflicting them with the consequences of that.

[Bri MT]

Disclaimer: I don't do VCE english, but I have done competitive public speaking at high school level

'Should families that refuse vaccinations be denied government benefits for their children?' This question has been publicized in numerous forms of previous, current and most likely future media coverages. For me, personally, the answer is simple; no, they should not. Yet for others, the facts and figures are not so clear, making it difficult for them to come to a conclusion. And that is why I'm here today.
 To outline the reasons exactly why financially blackmailing families who have every right to 'refuse' vaccinations is wrong. Why families should be allowed to hold beliefs without being forcefully corrupted by our government, why families should be allowed to determine their children's medications, why families should have the right to fear the risks associated with vaccines and why the policy is outright unnecessary. 

-The second sentence seems a bit awkward to me, I would re-word it.
-Would the people be 'corrupted' by the government decision?

Argument 1:
In Australia, parents are legally able to determine the medications their children receive. Within an advice document produced in April 2010, by the Medical Insurance Group of Australia (MIGA), it was stated 'In general, a minor (less than 18 years) requires consent from a parent or guardian before treatment can commence, with the exception of an emergency or where treatment is of a minor nature.'
 Vaccinations do not fall into the exceptional categories, as they are neither an immediately life-saving treatment, nor are they a minor procedure; meaning parental consent is required. The controversy surrounding this policy is remarkable. A right that should be automatic is being loaded with all sorts of penalties. Parents legally have every right to refuse vaccinations. How can our government dictate that child benefits should be cut for unvaccinated children, when the same government sanctioned the previously quoted document, in 2010 with full knowledge that this would allow for the legal refusal of vaccines by families? 

"The controversy which surrounds this policy is remarkable" seems a bit antagonistic. In your introduction you indicated that you were delivering this speech to people who haven't made up their mind about the policy. Now, it reads to me as though you are insulting these people. Maybe that's just the way I read it, because I doubt that that is your intention.

I feel that you could more blatantly state that removing child support is undermining that legal right.

Argument 2:
Individuals should have the right to follow their religion and its rules without being compromised by the government's proposed blackmail policy. Although Australia has not yet made vaccines compulsory, choosing to not vaccinate your child or children is made almost impossible. There are several religions in which vaccines contradict members beliefs. For example, Christian Scientists, who believe that the body is sacred and should not receive certain chemicals, blood or tissues and should only be healed by God or natural means.
 As of the 1st of January 2016 religious exemptions for unvaccinated children were disregarded, meaning children unvaccinated for religious reasons will be denied child benefits of up to $15,000, unless they agree to vaccinate before the 31st of December 2016. As a free country, which is said to be accepting, respectful and non-discriminative this policy is far from 'Australian'. 

-Almost impossible for everyone? or just those who face economic disadvantage?
-This is pedantic of me, but are the children the ones recieving child benefits or is it their parents (on their behalf)?
-I'm not sure that what people say about Australia aligns with your last sentence. To the best of my knowledge views about Australian's include that we swear a lot (considered to be disrespectful in many cultures), and are racist.

Argument 3:
Recent surveys on Australian immunisation rates prove the policy unnecessary. Statistics have shown that just a mere 3% of Australian families would be affected by the policy; many of which do not fall within the low income category. Proving the penalty for not vaccinating your children ineffective, statistics show that immunisation rates are steady at 92%. As the vast majority of Australian children are vaccinated, there should be no concern for the 1.77% of unvaccinated children.
For if your child is vaccinated and if you hold great faith in vaccines, then you should have no issues with your children being exposed to either disease or unvaccinated children. Once compared to the statistics, it becomes evident that the policy is a great over-reaction and that it is simply unnecessary.

Given that you haven't linked it to having a negligible impact on herd immunity (and if you did this a supporting statistic would be great), I'm not sure that saying that the effect of the policy would be minimal supports your argument.

 
Argument 4:
Vaccines come with great risks and have the potential to harm and even kill children. Families deserve the right to protect their children from the risks associated with vaccines without being compromised financially. If completely vaccinated, children are vaccinated for 42 different diseases via 35 individual needles within the first four years of their lives. All vaccinations contain toxins, chemicals and many forms of carcinogens. Injecting these into the body of an underdeveloped child can put your child at risk of severe reaction, disease or even death.
 The risks of vaccines are rarely publicized and when they are its to a minimum, to hide the facts that vaccines are something to not only think about, but also to be concerned about. Here are a few of the risks for example: anaphylaxis, susceptibility to disease, Febrile convulsions, paralysis or even death. You should not be obliged in any way to put your child's health at risk due to your financial situation.

As you seem to be aware, most of the Australian population doesn't believe that vaccines come with great risks. Your audience probably believes that the risk of these extreme events you mention is minimal (if credible), and far less than the risk associated with being unvaccinated. Using this argument, in my opinion, makes you seem more extreme and reduces your perceived reliability as a source. You also don't list any sources, which makes your argument less credible.

As someone who is pro-vaccine, you are more likely to turn me against this policy by talking about the impact on the child of being denied funding if parents do choose to upheld their legal right you previously cited. I suspect that a child from a low-income family won't have improved health if their parents struggle to pay for food, hygiene products, etc due to cut funding, and that finding statistics for this wouldn't be too difficult.

Conclusion:
The withdrawal of child benefits for unvaccinated children is unfair. Parents literally have the legal right to refuse vaccines for their children; they should definitely not be compromised for their decisions. Not only should parents have a choice for personal reasons, their beliefs and ethical boundaries should also be respected. With Australia being one of the most immunised countries in the world, the policy is continuously being proven unnecessary. For some $15,000 goes a very long way; towards education, health care and other necessities. No family should be penalised for a decision they have every right to make.

-"Literally" sounds a bit teen-speak-ish, I would recommend against using it here
-Are the parents being compromised?  Consider word choice
-Your use of the word "prove" makes me cringe, maybe because I study a lot of science and are taught against it, but also because you've provided no evidence that having a high immunisation rate makes the policy unnecessary.   We're also very privileged to live in a country with better health compared to others in the rest of the world, and many people are aware of this.

I hope that this helps you with continuing to form your initial draft, and I am sorry if I have come across as belittling or have offended you.