Immunisation, parental rights and individual freedom

The following is taken straight from RUAP’s web site.

One of the main principles of the Rise Up Australia Party is to protect every individual’s right to freedom of speech, of thought, of action, and freedom of association. We oppose unnecessary intervention by the state. We do not accept that ‘it is the responsibility of the village to raise the child’. We believe it is the right of every parent to decide the discipline, the education and the medical care their child will receive; therefore we advocate that the decision to immunise or not to immunise lies ultimately with the parents.

Increasingly, governments around the world are usurping parent’s rights. In Australia, on our governments websites immunisation is promoted; there is, without exception, a disclaimer which wavers all responsibility should a child have a serious negative reaction to immunisation. Our research has revealed that there are undisputed risks with vaccinations, and the decision to take that risk must lie with, and only with, the parents whose primary motivation is their child’s wellbeing.

The Rise Up Australia Party stands opposed to big business/drug companies usurping the rights of parents by putting pressure on governments to make the decision on their behalf, what is best for their children. The pharmaceutical industry is a trillion dollar business which stands to profit greatly from forced and subsidised immunisations. Perhaps we could dare to suggest that the biggest risk from children not being immunised is to the pharmaceutical industries profits and certain political party’s sponsorship.

We do not support the belief that immunised children are at risk from unimmunised children? Isn’t this the reason for immunisation; to obtain protection from the environment that you are exposed to? How then can immunised children be at risk from unimmunised children if immunisations provide immunity? You could argue that unimmunised children are at risk from those who have not been immunised and that is a fair call. However there is much evidence to suggest that the unimmunised build up a greater resistance to their environment than do the children that have undergone immunisations? (1)

Here with is an extract from the dialogue of a concerned member of our party

“After much research I, S——– C——- decided against immunisation. During my son’s primary school years there was an outbreak of mumps and he wasn’t immunised. While many of his immunised peers succumbed to the disease, my son did not. Although, he was exposed to the same risk, he no doubt developed immunity to mumps; he did not develop any symptoms presumably because his immune system wasn’t compromised by the immunisation itself. My son’s unimmunised state could not and did not affect his peers.” (2)

We acknowledge that the govt has a duty of care to advocate vaccinations, but also as part of that duty of care, is their responsibility to provide comprehensive documented information on the risks involved in vaccinating, versus the statistics and documented information which supports vaccinations, leaving it up to the informed parent to make the final decision, without rebuff.

The party realises that vaccination is a ‘hot’ topic due to Liberal Party policies trying to enforce it, and those actively opposed to such policy advocating for the rights of the individual to make choices.

Parents must do their own research and become fully convinced in their own minds that the decision they make is for the best interests of their child/children. Below is a start in the journey of investigation.

(1) Against: http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/Vaccinations–Know-the-risks-and-failures-.aspx
For: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/vaccine-decision/