Paul,
I'd go along with most of that. There's still the problem of getting parties to
agree which rare events are (or are not) vaccine damage. Rather than a principle
of huge one off payments for specifically damaged children - wouldn't proper
lifetime support for those needing it be a better option?
Jeff
> Heres me being controversial (wot? me?) with tongue slightly in cheek.
> I think that immunisations in children should be compulsory. the doctrine of
> informed consent does not apply here, wot is more a parents refusal on
> behalf of their child-who cannot give a consent to ask to have it- could
> mean some others child with immunosuppression (who cannot have MMR but are
> at great risk from the diseases) dying. This all about being a responsible
> part of the community. The quid pro quo would be that children would
> automatically and without needing to go to court get huge payments from us
> if they got the exceptionally rare event of vaccine damage.
|