Coalition’s ‘no jab, no pay’ policy elicits mixed feelings in health professionals

0
174

vaccination stock
Those refraining from vaccinating their children on religious grounds may still do so. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

A government decision to withhold family and childcare payments from parents who refuse to vaccinate their children has prompted mixed reaction from medical professionals, some fearing it will drive the anti-vaccination movement further underground.

On Sunday the prime minister, Tony Abbott, and the social services minister, Scott Morrison, said that from next year people who claimed to be “conscientious objectors” to vaccination would no longer receive the childcare benefit, childcare rebate and the family tax benefit part A end-of-year supplement.

Those refraining from vaccinating their children on religious grounds may still do so, but only if their religious organisation has a formally registered objection approved by the government.

Professor Peter McIntyre, a paediatrician with the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, described the policy linking vaccines to childcare payments as a “world first”.

As with other health policies, such as the introduction of plain packaging for tobacco products, other countries were likely to watch Australia closely to see the impact the vaccination legislation would have, he said.

“This is something that hasn’t really been tried before,” McIntyre said.

“We have had evidence from the US that if you increase the hassle factor of objecting, then a significant number of people decide to just do it, feeling that objecting just isn’t worthwhile.

“I guess what we’d all like to see though is any decision by parents to vaccinate through a policy like this also underpinned by better information, understanding and appreciation of vaccination and a realisation that it’s not a danger to their children.”

McIntyre said he did not want to predict whether the policy would be a success, but said it would be important to monitor more than just its impact on vaccination rates.

“Not being able to attend school or childcare, and a child missing out on education opportunities and having their exposure to socialisation restricted because of the parent’s decision, is probably something we don’t want to see happen,” he said.

“It could be a stunning success in terms of increasing vaccination rates, but any undesired consequences must be monitored as well.”

The government said more than 39,000 children under seven are not vaccinated because their parents are vaccine objectors, an increase of more than 24,000 children over the past decade.

The reasons for failing to vaccinate vary. Some parents forget that their children are due for a vaccination, and will usually vaccinate once reminded. Other parents wrongly believe vaccines are linked to conditions such as autism..

A clinical professor in paediatric infectious diseases at the University of Sydney, David Isaacs, said despite the number of vaccine objectors, immunisation rates in Australia were still strong; about 97% of families eligible for family tax benefits choose to vaccinate.

“If we really think immunisations are valuable, which they are, and that the vast majority of people are sensible and want their children vaccinated, which they do, why do we then need draconian measures?” Isaacs said.

“The way I see it is that this government that says, ‘We don’t want a nanny state,’ is being a nanny state.

“My suspicion is all you’ll do through this policy is alienate anti-vaxxers more and then you’ll have a resentful group of suspicious people less likely to listen to government advice.”

But the president of the Australian Medical Association, Professor Brian Owler, said other approaches, such as educating those opposed to vaccination, were failing.

He told the ABC on Monday that as the number of conscientious objectors had been rising, it was “not unreasonable” for the government to change its approach.

“Our approach to date has been to try and have a mechanism to encourage parents to go and have a conversation with a credible source of information, being their family doctor or GP,” Owler said.

“But … there are obviously people that are not participating in that process appropriately, and so that’s why I think it’s not unreasonable for the government to come up with … another measure.”

One anti-vaccination group has responded angrily to the legislation, and used social media to organise a “phone jam” of Morrison’s parliamentary and electorate offices.

The group called for members to “clog up the phone lines” by calling the minister’s office and asking questions about vaccination in response to what they claimed were measures aimed at “bribing” and “coercing” them into vaccinating their children.

“If your child can’t have peanuts would you allow peanut oil to be injected into your child,” one parent proposed asking.

Morrison’s office has been asked for comment.