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.