Oh Leunig, not again.
In case you were in any doubt that Michael Leunig is an “anti-vaxxer”.
This morning, The Age newspaper has published yet another cartoon from our formerly favourite, duck-loving cartoonist, which appears to be taking an anti-vaccination stance.
Invoking Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam, Leunig appears to question the Victorian state government’s strong pro-immunisation message.
In an expansion of their “no jab, no play”, children will need to be fully vaccinated to attend childcare or kindergarten as of January 1 next year.
It’s not the first time Leunig has published an anti-vaccination cartoon.
Earlier this year, The Age printed this cartoon:
It seems the newspaper’s readers weren’t too impressed either, with many taking to social media to voice their frustrations.
Science communicator and vaccination advocate Jo Alabster, among them:
It would take a great deal for Leunig to convince me that he understands vaccination and isn’t anti-vax. pic.twitter.com/6C5WQ6sUVS
— Jo Alabaster (@joalabaster) August 18, 2015
Top Comments
Let's put all the vitriol of her attack piece on Leunig's other work to one side and look at what point Leunig is actually making.
We have had free voluntary vaccinations for at least the last 40 years, and it has delivered very low rates of childhood diseases of those vaccinated against. So the argument is: Given that the voluntary system we already have in place is effective, is a mandatory system that punishes those that opt out of this medical intervention justified?
This is much more subtle argument, with valid pros and cons on both sides of it.
Many of you seem to making dramatic and spurious comparisons to the time before we had vaccinations, but this was not Leunigs point at all. His was one about the limits to state power. Yes, introducing a series of punishments may increase the rates of vaccinated children (though this is not guaranteed, as the hard line by the state may actually have the opposite effect and galvanise the anti-vax movement in reaction to it). But is this supposed increase enough to justify taking away parents right to choose? It's very easy to say you agree, but I could find many issues where you wouldn't find state intervention justified, even if their were scientifically established benefits. Breastfeeding, child-discipline, education decisions, religion, diet. In all of these areas there are limits to state intervention over the rights of parents to choose. Most of you would be very uncomfortable with China's level of state intervention in families, for example
The argument Leunig is making about state authoritarianism is more complex than the reactionary "He's an anti-vaxxer, let's throw tomatoes at him" that many of you seem to making.
95 % of australians are vaccinated, of the 5% not vaccinated, only 1 in 6 are objecting on non medical grounds............ with all this, the rise in measles and pertussis, has skyrocketed, along with the vaccinations, please explain? If a herd is 95% vaccinated, yet 50% of the herd are still getting sick, doesnt anyone ask why?
Its just a SCIENTIFIC COINCIDENCE......MERCK
One word - Smallpox
meaningless!
One word peabrain