http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals ... .logue.pdf

There are dozens of studies where opt out versus optin choice for vaccination rates have been tested. (one above)
Opt out rates always have a higher rate of vaccination.

And yes, I think if not mandated many parents will ignore their childrens health. Why?
History
In the United Kingdom in 1977, skepticism about the need for the vaccine for pertussis, or whooping cough, led to a decrease in immunizations. In 1982, 47,508 cases of pertussis were reported, the highest in 25 years, according to the CDC.
In Dublin, Ireland, in 2000, when the measles-vaccination rate dropped to 70 percent, there were 355 cases of measles, and three children died.
From 1989 to 1991, about 55,000 cases of measles and 132 deaths were reported in the United States. Most cases were in pockets of unvaccinated preschool children in urban areas, the CDC reported.
Children are dieing of whooping cough in Texas since 2005....

How does the example of a doctor not attempting to fully inform the parent's unless prompted point that parent's don't/won't educate themselves

A prepared, informed parent will bring the topic up themselves... And especially when they see a needle appear. Maybe there are doctors out there who don't inform parents what they are putting into their children. I haven't seen any myself.
Now, fast food purveyors? They like to keep things close to the vest...

rickyp wrote:http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_health_care_for_the_poor_and_underserved/v022/22.1.logue.pdf

There are dozens of studies where opt out versus optin choice for vaccination rates have been tested. (one above)
Opt out rates always have a higher rate of vaccination.

But the question isn't does it make higher rates. I would agree if you makes everybody get the vaccination, more people will get the vaccination. The question becomes is the increase worth the lose of personal liberty?

You obviously say yes but that is totally in line with your ideology, i.e. the government is always the best answer to something.

The study you linked to above said it was a moderate increase in the number of vaccinations. I don't know if that increase is enough to warrent the lose of liberty.

As for your other examples, without a link to the source material, I can not comment.

rickyp wrote:A prepared, informed parent will bring the topic up themselves... And especially when they see a needle appear.

and in an opt in an unprepared parent will ask the questions when the doctor asks do you want the vaccination. Seriously ricky, I am a pretty smart and educated man. My oldest daughter, who is now 6yrs old, was born while I was in my 3L. Her first immunization was given at her 4 month old wellness exam. It was the 4th time she was to the doctor but the first time immunizations was mentioned. I had no idea what the schedule was. He said she was due for 2 shots. MMR and DPT. If I hadn't of asked what they covered and what were the possible side effects, he wouldn't have said anything.

arch

You obviously say yes but that is totally in line with your ideology

That would be my ideology that I beleive ridding the world of polio and other communicable diseases by the most efficient and effective means possible is a worthwhile pursuit?
Or my ideology that looking at evidence of past public behaviour can predict future public behaviour?

I believe, rather that it is your ideological blindness that demonstrates the inanity of your "defence of liberty".
You cheerfully agree that not immunizing your children against polio etc is a poor decision. Perhaps disastrous.
But generally you still want people to be in a position to put their own children in harms way, and potentiually harm others ...to make the point that they should be free to make that choice. And more than that, free to be ignorant of the ramifications of their choice (Thats the significant difference between opt out and opt in, one offrs the refuge of an uninformed decision - the other doesn't) )

In most cases where personal liberties are at stake I agree with you. But, as was pointed out earlier, when your liberty begins to intrude upon the freedom of others ... there is a conflict of interest. And it is at that point that either reasonable accomodation must be made (smoking in private) OR the needs of the many or of the unprotected (Children) need to be considered.
As for why the government? In the past the Church was responsible for immunization in certain places and times. But today, in secular societies, there is really only one engine to effectively, universally conduct an important program. However, I'd support any organizations effort to conduct this important program.

rickyp wrote:That would be my ideology that I beleive ridding the world of polio and other communicable diseases by the most efficient and effective means possible is a worthwhile pursuit?
Or my ideology that looking at evidence of past public behaviour can predict future public behaviour?

No that would be the ideology of relying on/expecting the government to do everything instead of try to create the non-government/non-mandatory methods of doing the same thing.

rickyp wrote:IAs for why the government? In the past the Church was responsible for immunization in certain places and times. But today, in secular societies, there is really only one engine to effectively, universally conduct an important program. However, I'd support any organizations effort to conduct this important program.

And why do those organizations not do them anymore? Because people have become so reliant on the government forcing people to do things, they are no longer making the donations to those NGO's enough to allow them to continue the good works.

arch

And why do those organizations not do them anymore? Because people have become so reliant on the government forcing people to do things, they are no longer making the donations to those NGO's enough to allow them to continue the good works.

I'd say that governments usually took these roles, back unto antiquity. It would have been unusual for Churches except where the Church was a controlling factor in a society. But mainly NGOs aren't the answer chosen today:
1. Because they weren't particularly successful in the past,
2. Because in many nations secular society took over many of the roles undertaken by the church. Partly because no church dominated, and partly because many people resented the church acting, preferring a secular answer.
3. NGOs (which were mostly churches till recently) aren't afforded the authority to conduct manadatory measures, and in the case of vaccination anything less than a mandate will provide inferior public health benefit. . Especially because people don't want to submit to the authority of a church to which they might not belong ... Every citizen, regardless of any other affiliation, is a citizen and invested in the power of their democratic representatives...

But mostly because people looked for solutions that worked, and as poorly as govenment sometimes performs it often performs well.
Compare the FEMA response to New Orleans to the FEMA response to the latest hurricane and the incredible flooding in many states like Vermont. In one case government castigated for not filling the role adequately. In the second, quiet efficiency generally won the day.

rickyp wrote:Compare the FEMA response to New Orleans to the FEMA response to the latest hurricane and the incredible flooding in many states like Vermont. In one case government castigated for not filling the role adequately. In the second, quiet efficiency generally won the day.

The FEMA response to Katrina actually kind of proves my point. From the wikipedia entry on criticism of gov't response to Katrina we have this line

A report by the Appleseed Foundation, a public policy network, found that local entities (nonprofit and local government agencies) were far more flexible and responsive than the federal government or national organizations

Government isn't always the right answer. In the vaccine issue, allow for an opt in program but then have local organizations do an education program to explain why a child should be vaccinated. Or incentify it. Make it opt in but required for public school admission. This way the parent has the choice and can always send their child to private school or home school if they want to.

The point I am trying to make is there are other ways to do it other then mandatory government enforcement.

Archduke - I agree that there are other ways. I do, however, think that they are likely to be far less effective. It's odd that we can see a government programme that does have results, did not fail like FEMA did over Katrina, and the response is still to move away from it.

If you can demonstrate that an opt-in would continue to be as effective as the current system, then fair enough. If you are prepared to say how much less effective you'd accept a different system being, then let us hear it.

If you say it simply comes down to the principle of 'individual choice' v 'government mandate', well, I'd have to disagree based on several key points:

1) Regardless of the principle, it's not been demonstrated that a different approach has worked any better. If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it
2) There are ways to opt out, which may be a bit of a hurdle, and may vary from place to place
3) The 'choice' in this case rests not with the person being vaccinated, but with their parents. And, as I've tried to get across (and hopefully succeeded?), there are those who have no choice but to be effectively unvaccinated (even if they have been vaccinated in the past)

There are many examples of bad government programmes, but this is not really one of them. It makes some parents feel uncomfortable that some of the power they would like to have is suborned by the State, and sure, that is not something to be ignored - but ultimately, when it comes down to a clash between a little personal liberty to make choices for another person, and the general wellbeing of all (including the person you are making the choice on behalf of), it actually comes down to a clash between the rights of parents to have autonomy and the rights of children and others to be protected by and from society.