Editorial: Immunisation rebels are not moral crusaders
When most people hear the term "conscientious objectors", it comes with an image of potential soldiers who refuse to perform military service because they believe, on moral or religious grounds, that it is wrong to kill another human being.
The Macquarie Dictionary has widened the definition as "someone who on the grounds of deeply held beliefs refuses to meet a political or communal obligation, such as military service, compulsory voting, the attendance of children at school, etc".
It is incumbent on the Government, as representatives of our society, to determine how wide the meaning should extend.
As parents enrol their children for lower primary school next year, will they be content that the "moral objections" of other parents mean that, on average, one student in every two classes will not be immunised against potentially fatal diseases?
As a community, are we comfortable that the Federal Government sanctions the decisions of these parents, against the advice of the medical and scientific experts, and gives them the status of "conscientious objectors" to collect social welfare payments?
Frustrated doctors say they cannot understand why parents shun free vaccines that could prevent dangerous diseases such as measles, while scientists around the world desperately try to find a vaccine against the deadly Ebola virus.
Australian Childhood Immunisation Register figures for the June quarter show 4618 WA children have been listed by parents who are conscientious objectors, the biggest quarterly rise in WA since the register started publishing State data in 2012.
Overall, WA has the lowest immunisation figures of any State for children aged two and five, with 89.7 of five-year-olds vaccinated, making WA the only State below the 90 per cent benchmark to achieve so-called herd immunity.
While the WA Health Department and Australian Medical Association try to combat the active anti-vaccination lobby, their efforts are diluted by the Federal Government's loophole of allowing those who do not immunise their children to receive the Family Tax Benefit Part A supplement and the childcare benefit if they are registered as conscientious objectors.
A decade ago, there were scientific questions about the safety of vaccinating healthy children but the accepted medical evidence is that modern immunisation programs are largely safe and important for a healthy community.
In any society, there are going to be people who want to accept the benefits of living in relatively safe community without acknowledging the role everyone has to fulfil.
Of course, rebellious ideas and questioning minds also play essential roles in society but the medical science on this issue is clear.
By conferring the title of "conscientious objectors" on parents who refuse to take part in vaccination programs and put the health of others at risk, the Federal Government is undermining the efforts of doctors and health officials to keep all of us safe from dangerous diseases.
