Child Rights: Convention's Role in Anti-Vaccination and Home Schooling

This article discusses the Convention's role in anti-vaccination and home schooling and its impact on child rights. It explores the support of parents and the Convention's guidelines for child rights. The article concludes that while vaccination is necessary, there are no strict implementations for it, and home schooling should be made easier for children.

Running head: Child Rights
Child Rights

Child Rights 1
Introduction
Child Rights is a major issue and it had been taken into consideration by United
Nation Human Rights Convention in its guidelines for the child rights. The main discussion is
on the support of the parents and the convention role in anti-vaccination and home schooling
topic which determines the rights given to the children under convention and are they
undermining the role of parental authority.
Anti-Vaccination
According to Article 24 of the Convention says that it is a right of every child to get
highest standard of health and this benefit should reach to every children who need it (United
Nation Human Rights, 1990). Life threatening infectious diseases has been eliminated by
Immunisation (Gerber, 2013). From 2 million to 3 million deaths recorded every year. This
raises the question on parents role in providing vaccination to their child as what they think
that vaccination is required to provide to their child as some parents think that Vaccination
does not help in providing protection against life threatening diseases and vaccines that have
also side effects. According to the report of World Health Organisation states that “Vaccines
are very safe and its effects are usually minor and temporary such as sore arm or mild fever.
Its effects are very less than its anti-effects like in polio, the disease can cause paralysis,
measles can cause encephalitis and blindness and some can cause death” (Gerber, 2013). But
what Convention has laid down in its guidelines cannot underline that how government will
implement child rights. There are not such any steps taken to punish parents who did not
provide vaccination to their child. It can be concluded that the convention did not undermine
the parental authority.
Home Schooling
Article 28 of Convention says that to make primary school compulsory and free to all
but this will also violates the provision by providing access to the condition of education
(United Nation Human Rights, 1990). This also violates the parental right because some
parents who do not have birth certificate of their child faced difficulties in enrolling their kids
(Gerber, 2013). It will create more barriers to education for children. Kids have already been
exposed by illness and this legislation will much more affect the kids than before. They

Child Rights 2
should make it easier for children for home-schooling rather than making school compulsory.
It can be concluded that convention undermines the parental right (Gerber, 2013).
Conclusion
In Conclusion, Convention articles which has been laid for child rights. Vaccination
talks about health standards whereas House Schooling talks about education and its
implementation. Both are necessary according to the Convention there is no any strict
implementation for Vaccination whereas in House schooling they has not considered whole
view such as parental view which should also been taken into consideration and in
vaccination it is required that Convention guidelines should direct government to make some
strict rules.

Child Rights 3
References
Gerber, P. (2013) Bringing a human rights perspective to the vaccination debate. [Online] Available
from: https://www.sciencealert.com/bringing-a-human-rights-perspective-to-the-debate-
surrounding-the-vaccination-of-children [Accessed 27/07/18]
United Nation Human Rights. (1990) Convention on the rights of the Child. [Online] Available from:
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx [Accessed 27/07/18]