Media Partners | Contributors | Advertise | Contact | Log in | Wednesday 19 June 2019

Mandatory vaccinations compromise human liberties


Share This Article:

Newly appointed French Prime Minister, Édouard Philippe, will probably be faced with a huge backlash as he looks to encroach on France's youngest citizens.

The controversy comes after the PM announced France will make vaccinations mandatory from 2018, using ongoing measles related deaths in children as his reason.

Making vaccinations a mandatory legal procedure may at first seem fair game, considering that the World Health Organisation (WHO) reported 15 deaths every hour in 2015 from the disease that is so easily prevented.

Despite the obvious main goal of health organisations and ministers alike to finally end the futility of the deaths, making vaccinations compulsory could effectively create a binding contract that cajoles millions of unborn French citizens into something they have no say on. 

It's hard to comment on what liberty a child has, in the sense that the children Philippe is talking of would very much unlikely be able to talk, walk or rationalise in depth.

This places a certain amount of the child's liberty into the hands of their parents. Ergo, this move could extract not only the individual’s fundamental liberty but also the sovereignty parents have over their offspring. 

As well as the feasible destruction of liberty, speculation over the safety and possible long-term effect of vaccinations has lingered for a number of years. 

In 1998 British gastroenterologist, Andrew Wakefield published research that suggested the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination caused autism. Although proven fraudulent, since the research featured in the medical journal, 'The Lancet', hundreds of studies have been shared that indicate vaccinations are more sinister than we think.

Ingredients such as Thimerosal (ethylmercury), Formaldehyde, Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) and Aluminium are all present in vaccinations. Some of these components amongst the deadliest in the world.

The presence of Thimerosal and Aluminium have both flagged up in the medical world, and are considered to cause neurological problems that result in vision and hearing difficulties, delays in the development of motor skills and lowered IQ. 

There have been thousands of court cases in the U.S on vaccinations being linked to autism. A 2010 New Scientist article featured the court case of nine-year-old Hannah Poling, that resulted in a payout of $1.5 million to her family. The court accepted, with approval from the US Department of Health and Human Services, that vaccinations against nine diseases Poling received had likely aggravated her existing Mitochondria, that resulted in her developing autism. In this case, which is most likely in all, the vaccination itself didn't cause the development of autism, it merely induced it.

This instance presages the grave risk of blindly vaccinating against numerous diseases. If Philippe requires France's young to have mandatory vaccinations, he should also be inclined to fund every single child to have health screenings that will, at a minimum, determine the child's next 10 years of life. 

In short, any cause for concern regarding the child's health should be looked at and treated before any vaccination is administered, to lessen the chance of provoking any kind of disorder in the future.

This move from France could spark a European movement that favours mandatory vaccination. I think in the current political climate, Theresa May would be taking a huge risk introducing mandatory vaccinations, as the country could see itself split even further following a disagreeable Brexit. 

This could be a perfect time for scientists and doctors to search for vaccination preservatives that hold less of a potential risk to the quality of human life than the ones mentioned. It is clear that using the likes of Thimerosal, Formaldehyde, MSG and Aluminium are all unsustainable ways in preventing disease if they themselves have the potentiality to inflict more harm than they seek to prevent.

However, no matter how effective and safe vaccinations are made, there still exists the disposition of leaders and health organisations to bypass a human being's fundamental liberty to practice bodily integrity, and ultimately the freedom of choice. 

There can be no argument against repudiating a human's choice, even if it may seem in the subject’s best interest at the time. 

John Stuart Mill puts it far better in his work, 'On Liberty'.


He concludes: "The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest."

Yet these intrinsic laws are so hard to abide by with the vast swathes of preventable epidemics taking place across Europe. It is unlikely that there will ever be a decisive solution to the problem of vaccinations and human liberty.

© 2019 is a website of BigChoice Group Limited | 201 Borough High Street, London, SE1 1JA | registered in England No 6842641 VAT # 971692974