Sunday, May 3, 2009

Law and Order SVU... touting the government's agenda?

Did anyone see Law and Order SVU on Tuesday? It is one of my favorite shows, however this week I have a bone to pick with the NBC giant that encompasses all the Law and Order series'. When the show started I thought it resembled the Casey Anthony case out of Florida. I am always amazed that they can produce an episode so quickly after a national news event. So, I rolled my eyes and settled down to enjoy the writing and Marishka Hargitay.

Here is where the problem begins, the writers at NBC apparently decided they couldn't find the character which resembles Casey Anthony guilty. I guess they felt the need to add more drama to an already complicated case and attack families who choose not to immunize their children. I know this is a sensitive topic, and NBC dealt with it in an original manner by attempting to prosecute the mother who would not immunize her child. My question is this... did the writers come up with this storyboard in a completely original manner or is someone at NBC attempting to toe the goverment line?

Are we really ready as a country to prosecute (persecute... take your pick here) families who will not vaccinate their children? Does it matter why they don't want to vaccinate? Should we require everyone in the U.S. to vaccinate their children, no matter the side effects?

I will admit this hits close to home for me, I have a family member who some would say exhibited some of those side effects closely linked to the MMR vaccine.

I believe NBC did an outstanding job of making me question the need for vaccinations, but I worry about those parents who are quick to blame everyone for occasional issues they may have. This could so easily be compared to the Swine Flu issues right now, are you responsible for other children in a park if you don't know your child is sick when you take them out to play? Just a thought.


  1. I haven't been able to watch Law & Order in years - I'm forever catching re-runs though.

    My personal opinion is that vaccinations should be required - especially if your child is in school.

    Obviously, certain childhood illnesses, like chicken pox shouldn't be required bc it's nothing really "harmful" like, say, polio. But then again, I got vaccinated when I was fifteen because I'd never had chicken pox and to let it go would be dangerous if I were to get it when I was older.

    The benefits of vaccination far outweighs any potential risk, in my opinion.

  2. I think everyone knows where I stand on this issue. From a public health standpoint, no, I don't want those children around mine. End of story.

    The people who do not immunize their children are not only endangering theirs, they are endangering ours. Vaccines wear off, things like pertussis are coming back, and someday there's going to be a new polio epidemic, and this time it will take a lot of previously immunized kids/ young adults with it.

    As for the children who aren't immunized? Yes, they should be prosecuted. Wouldn't you prosecute someone who lets their kids play in the street? Or who leaves their kids to fall in a pool? It's russian roulette, with disease.

  3. Sheila, I understand your point and you are correct in that chicken pox will be awful if you get it as an adult, and could possibly result in some very bad side effects.

    Mother... thank you for visiting my site. It is nice to agree to disagree with someone. While I understand what you are saying, I would counter that with what about those people whose religious beliefs prevent them from vaccination? If you take the necessary steps to protect your children, then how does an unvaccinated child (unless it is measles) affect your child?

    Again, thank you for visiting my site. I love yours, and have found your insights regarding your boys very helpful. I only have one, so I think he gets lost in the shuffle of an all girl household sometimes.

  4. Fell for the Andrew Wakefield fraud, did we?