Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

MacLEOD: Even if there is some risk to vaccinations (very very small for most), that, of itself, is the wrong question. More importantly, one has to also look at relative risk


The other day I posed a comment on my Facebook page linking to a Newsweek article which stated, “Anti-vax Movement Listed by World Health Organization as One of the Top 10 Health Threats for 2019”.   (CLICK HERE for the full story)

That prompted a response from Ian MacLeod, which he has given me permission to use on the blog-site; a commentary which he indicated has been used previously, and one which he will continue to post in places where the public will be able to read it.  Here is what he had to say:


Subject to the second to last paragraph, I think that the parents who intentionally expose their children to disease, should be treated the same way as child beaters, and charged. Those children should not be allowed in the schools.

Likewise, I hope some enterprising lawyer launches a law suit against parents who have refused vaccination for their children, and those children have gotten sick, spreading disease to those with ineffective vaccinations.

Their children, and in turn mine and everyone else's, should not be willingly exposed to preventable harm.
Even if there is some risk to vaccinations (very, very small, for most), that, of itself, is the wrong question; more importantly, one has to also look at relative risk. If the risk of serious side effects is one in a million (say) from a vaccine, but one in 100,000 (say) of getting a debilitating illness if unvaccinated, both the odds of harm, and its magnitude, to the unvaccinated are very much higher by not getting vaccinated.


Compounding that is the grossly irresponsible risk being imposed on everyone else in the community.

I understand that, for informed medical reasons, some children may not be able to be vaccinated, and that is fair enough. However, for vaccination programs to be effective, a substantial majority (apparently, about 95%) of people should be vaccinated - otherwise, everyone else is exposed to higher risk. Likewise, vaccinations are not 100% protection, but close to it, so a very few may still get sick anyway.

But if non-doctors and non-research scientists who have only modest medical education, decide that they know more that the overwhelming majority of medical professionals, and in turn decide to expose their children to polio or any other number of debilitating diseases, I have a very serious problem with that, and with their capacity to be responsible parents.

Ian C. MacLeod
Their children, and in turn mine and everyone else's, should not be willingly exposed to preventable harm.

Am I too subtle?
Ian C. MacLeod


Ian is a retired lawyer. Before law, he spent 15 years as a BC banker (4 as a small-town branch manager). He has lived or worked in 17 communities of all sizes: BC (14), NS (2) and Quebec (1).

He has been very involved in the volunteer leadership of over 40 organizations, heading 14 of them - including the BC Chamber of Commerce (1992-1993), the Clan MacLeod Societies of Canada (2004-2008) and the Richmond Aquatics Advisory Board (2008--2018). He has written widely on public policy issues.

He has received several awards, including the Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal (2002).



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

'Very good news' that Supreme Court will hear B.C. mineral claims case, Eby says

The BC government needs clarity from the Supreme Court of Canada on a landmark mineral rights claim, Premier David Eby says. But the lawyer representing the challenger says that they would have preferred the province respect the lower court's decision. Eby said Thursday it is very good news that the court will hear its appeal of a ruling that found the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the provincial mineral claims regime are "inconsistent." The BC Court of Appeal ruled in December that the provincial Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA, should be "properly interpreted" to incorporate the UN declaration into the laws of B.C. with immediate legal effect. That ruling set off the appeal from the province amid concerns that it could cause economic uncertainty ... CLICK HERE for the full story 
Post a Comment
Read more

EBY OFFSIDE WITH NATIONAL INTEREST AS CARNEY AND SMITH BUILD BC'S ECONOMIC FUTURE WITHOUT HIM ~~ BC Conservatives

IMAGE CREDIT :  CBC News   Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced a landmark agreement today committing Ottawa to designate a new pipeline to BC's west coast as a project of national interest by October 1, 2026, with construction approval targeted for September 1, 2027. The deal pairs the pipeline with a new industrial carbon pricing framework and a fall 2027 construction start. British Columbia, the province where the pipeline ends, where the jobs would land, and where the export terminal would be built, was nowhere at the table. "This is a nation-building deal, and the BC NDP have been locked out of the room," said Trevor Halford, Interim Leader of the Official Opposition.  "While the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta were doing the hard work of growing the Canadian economy, the NDP is on the sidelines calling this pipeline a 'fiction' and an 'energy vampire.'  He chose petulance over partnership, and now BC ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Kamloops - North Thompson BC Conservative MLA Ward Stamer speaks to Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

The following is a condensed version of Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s remarks, to the BC Legislature, on the afternoon of Tuesday May 19th : I rise today to continue remarks on Bill 20, the K’ómoks treaty, and to address what I believe are some of the most important constitutional, democratic and governance concerns facing this Legislature today. At the centre of this debate are two major issues. First, unresolved overlapping territorial boundaries tied to this treaty process. And second, the growing legal and political consequences arising from the provincial government’s implementation of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, more commonly known as DRIPA. Much of the government’s defence on DRIPA rests upon references to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, commonly known as UNDRIP. And this is where we must begin having a more honest and mature conversation in this province. UNDRIP was never originally designed to function ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Labels

Show more