PROTECT THE COMMUNITY
I AGREE that people have a right to control what goes into their bodies, whether it's a vaccine to reduce the risk of infection or convenience food that produces obesity and ruins health.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Both of these outcomes are based on good science.
Unfortunately, that's about where the logic of anti-vaccinators ends.
Vaccination not only protects the individual but also, through "herd immunity", protects the rest of the community.
Vaccines have virtually eliminated many diseases in humans and animals.
We have come a long way since the days when we emptied the contents of the chamber pot onto the street.
We don't hear any calls for the personal right to continue practices like that because we now understand how diseases are transmitted and controlled.
Population vaccination is an extension of community health; like clean water and sewerage, food handling in restaurants and garbage disposal.
Calls for individual rights to defy community benefits are not how we build healthy communities. We regulate and give up some individual rights to protect the community's rights.
This is not the US, where community rights are subjugated by claims to individual rights.
Malcolm Cowan, West Launceston.
POLITICAL HUBRIS UNBECOMING
IT is distressing to see how arrogant our prime minister has become in parliamentary question time.
It is reminiscent of the final weeks/months of John Howard's leadership and his outcome was a disaster, losing both the election and his own seat in the parliament.
Hubris does not become politicians, nor does it endear them to the Australian public, who will be voting next year.
You are becoming a liability to your party, and if the Liberals want to have some supporters left in the country, perhaps you should stand aside and let someone else take them to the election.
Mary T Bates, Exeter.
MINING EXPLORATION PERMITS
SHEFFIELD residents expressed rightful concern and angst about a proposed mining exploration permit in the vicinity of Mt Roland (The Examiner, November 29).
Mineral Resources Tasmania is correct when they state the proposal was advertised publicly, with a 28-day window for objection.
But I guess the issues are how publicly is the proposal advertised (presumably not enough, if the public were unaware until a few days before the cut-off date), and what criteria are realistically available for the public to adequately object?
As an example, I own a conservation property in the North-East, part of which is involved in the Save The Tasmanian Devil captive breeding program.
A recent mining exploration lease permit bisected the property, and the 23-hectare devil breeding enclosure.
Luckily, this permit was disallowed, at the last minute.
This decade has been declared by the United Nations as the decade of ecosystem restoration. Let's try to find ways of meeting these goals, rather than allowing extractive industries to divide our communities.
