When push comes to shove, I just don't think it's ethical to force people to take vaccines (or any medicine) against their will.
By that line of thinking, we'd still have smallpox to worry about.
A lot of... less than great stuff was involved in eradicating smallpox (e.g. vaccination raids), so I don't know that this is a great example. Also, I said it was unethical not that it wouldn't have a positive benefit (particularly for those whose rights weren't violated).
Yes, it was. And because of that, smallpox no longer exists. It killed 300+ million people in the 77 years of the 20th century before we eradicated it, so forcing people to withstand a moment's inconvenience and wear a bandage for a couple days easily saved many millions of lives, perhaps billions all said and done. And that's not counting the pain and suffering to survivors either.
Really, I think smallpox is the best argument anyone could make for forced vaccinations. On the pro side, you have the greatest triumph of the human species since the homo genus emerged (you could argue writing, agriculture, or splitting the atom, but I think the absurdly huge short and long term impacts combined with the fact it is one of the only things we've truly achieved as a species together sets it ahead), on the anti-vax side you have killing babies because the people involved read the wrong articles on the internet.
Honestly, while not relevant to the US, the afflicted areas should consider mandatory vaccination if human trials indicate a vaccine with sufficiently low side effects and good efficacy.
When push comes to shove, I just don't think it's ethical to force people to take vaccines (or any medicine) against their will.
By that line of thinking, we'd still have smallpox to worry about.
A lot of... less than great stuff was involved in eradicating smallpox (e.g. vaccination raids), so I don't know that this is a great example. Also, I said it was unethical not that it wouldn't have a positive benefit (particularly for those whose rights weren't violated).
Yes, it was. And because of that, smallpox no longer exists. It killed 300+ million people in the 77 years of the 20th century before we eradicated it, so forcing people to withstand a moment's inconvenience and wear a bandage for a couple days easily saved many millions of lives, perhaps billions all said and done. And that's not counting the pain and suffering to survivors either.
Really, I think smallpox is the best argument anyone could make for forced vaccinations. On the pro side, you have the greatest triumph of the human species since the homo genus emerged (you could argue writing, agriculture, or splitting the atom, but I think the absurdly huge short and long term impacts combined with the fact it is one of the only things we've truly achieved as a species together sets it ahead), on the anti-vax side you have killing babies because the people involved read the wrong articles on the internet.
Honestly, while not relevant to the US, the afflicted areas should consider mandatory vaccination if human trials indicate a vaccine with sufficiently low side effects and good efficacy.
Ok, but surely you can appreciate that "the ends justify the means" is more than a little troubling ethically. Forcibly dragging children away from their parents to die in a pest house is not something I would put up there with the greatest achievements of man kind. Vaccinating people at gunpoint wouldn't be that high up on the list either. Both of which occurred with smallpox.
To put it another way, it shouldn't be necessary to forcibly vaccinate your population. Education and a little more carrot than stick can just as readily achieve the aim of eradicating disease (especially since 100% population immunity is not required). We've apparently managed it with a number of diseases since (present resurgences not withstanding).
When push comes to shove, I just don't think it's ethical to force people to take vaccines (or any medicine) against their will.
By that line of thinking, we'd still have smallpox to worry about.
A lot of... less than great stuff was involved in eradicating smallpox (e.g. vaccination raids), so I don't know that this is a great example. Also, I said it was unethical not that it wouldn't have a positive benefit (particularly for those whose rights weren't violated).
Yes, it was. And because of that, smallpox no longer exists. It killed 300+ million people in the 77 years of the 20th century before we eradicated it, so forcing people to withstand a moment's inconvenience and wear a bandage for a couple days easily saved many millions of lives, perhaps billions all said and done. And that's not counting the pain and suffering to survivors either.
Really, I think smallpox is the best argument anyone could make for forced vaccinations. On the pro side, you have the greatest triumph of the human species since the homo genus emerged (you could argue writing, agriculture, or splitting the atom, but I think the absurdly huge short and long term impacts combined with the fact it is one of the only things we've truly achieved as a species together sets it ahead), on the anti-vax side you have killing babies because the people involved read the wrong articles on the internet.
Honestly, while not relevant to the US, the afflicted areas should consider mandatory vaccination if human trials indicate a vaccine with sufficiently low side effects and good efficacy.
Smallpox vaccine has a fairly high incidence of problems stemming from it, some permanent (1k in 1mil), some short term (1 in 3). Its fairly common to spread vaccinia outside of the vaccination area and to other people or to contract it themselves. Because it isn't a shot, it's also a lot harder to contain after the area has been inoculated.
There are reasons why smallpox vaccine isn't made available to the public at large.
Smallpox was a much more cut and dried issue, as humans were the only reservoir for the disease, and it was not possible to be a carrier without being afflicted by the illness. Same thing with polio.
Not all diseases (*coughEBOLAcoughONcoughTOPIC*) work that way, which makes the efficacy of immunization campaigns much more questionable, and therefore the morality of enforcing them a lot more shady.
When push comes to shove, I just don't think it's ethical to force people to take vaccines (or any medicine) against their will.
By that line of thinking, we'd still have smallpox to worry about.
A lot of... less than great stuff was involved in eradicating smallpox (e.g. vaccination raids), so I don't know that this is a great example. Also, I said it was unethical not that it wouldn't have a positive benefit (particularly for those whose rights weren't violated).
Yes, it was. And because of that, smallpox no longer exists. It killed 300+ million people in the 77 years of the 20th century before we eradicated it, so forcing people to withstand a moment's inconvenience and wear a bandage for a couple days easily saved many millions of lives, perhaps billions all said and done. And that's not counting the pain and suffering to survivors either.
Really, I think smallpox is the best argument anyone could make for forced vaccinations. On the pro side, you have the greatest triumph of the human species since the homo genus emerged (you could argue writing, agriculture, or splitting the atom, but I think the absurdly huge short and long term impacts combined with the fact it is one of the only things we've truly achieved as a species together sets it ahead), on the anti-vax side you have killing babies because the people involved read the wrong articles on the internet.
Honestly, while not relevant to the US, the afflicted areas should consider mandatory vaccination if human trials indicate a vaccine with sufficiently low side effects and good efficacy.
Ok, but surely you can appreciate that "the ends justify the means" is more than a little troubling ethically. Forcibly dragging children away from their parents to die in a pest house is not something I would put up there with the greatest achievements of man kind. Vaccinating people at gunpoint wouldn't be that high up on the list either. Both of which occurred with smallpox.
To put it another way, it shouldn't be necessary to forcibly vaccinate your population. Education and a little more carrot than stick can just as readily achieve the aim of eradicating disease (especially since 100% population immunity is not required). We've apparently managed it with a number of diseases since (present resurgences not withstanding).
We haven't. Smallpox is the only human disease that has been eradicated, ever, and it's because we didn't allow Nurgle cultists (in some cases literally, in other cases I'm being shitty to people who deserve to be shitty to) to stop us. Though we're pretty close with Guinea worm disease.
People should not have any negative moral right in regards to vaccination, where vaccination meets a cost / benefit to be used. You don't have a right to endanger everyone around you.
When push comes to shove, I just don't think it's ethical to force people to take vaccines (or any medicine) against their will.
By that line of thinking, we'd still have smallpox to worry about.
A lot of... less than great stuff was involved in eradicating smallpox (e.g. vaccination raids), so I don't know that this is a great example. Also, I said it was unethical not that it wouldn't have a positive benefit (particularly for those whose rights weren't violated).
Yes, it was. And because of that, smallpox no longer exists. It killed 300+ million people in the 77 years of the 20th century before we eradicated it, so forcing people to withstand a moment's inconvenience and wear a bandage for a couple days easily saved many millions of lives, perhaps billions all said and done. And that's not counting the pain and suffering to survivors either.
Really, I think smallpox is the best argument anyone could make for forced vaccinations. On the pro side, you have the greatest triumph of the human species since the homo genus emerged (you could argue writing, agriculture, or splitting the atom, but I think the absurdly huge short and long term impacts combined with the fact it is one of the only things we've truly achieved as a species together sets it ahead), on the anti-vax side you have killing babies because the people involved read the wrong articles on the internet.
Honestly, while not relevant to the US, the afflicted areas should consider mandatory vaccination if human trials indicate a vaccine with sufficiently low side effects and good efficacy.
Ok, but surely you can appreciate that "the ends justify the means" is more than a little troubling ethically. Forcibly dragging children away from their parents to die in a pest house is not something I would put up there with the greatest achievements of man kind. Vaccinating people at gunpoint wouldn't be that high up on the list either. Both of which occurred with smallpox.
To put it another way, it shouldn't be necessary to forcibly vaccinate your population. Education and a little more carrot than stick can just as readily achieve the aim of eradicating disease (especially since 100% population immunity is not required). We've apparently managed it with a number of diseases since (present resurgences not withstanding).
We haven't. Smallpox is the only human disease that has been eradicated, ever, and it's because we didn't allow Nurgle cultists (in some cases literally, in other cases I'm being shitty to people who deserve to be shitty to) to stop us. Though we're pretty close with Guinea worm disease.
People should not have any negative moral right in regards to vaccination, where vaccination meets a cost / benefit to be used. You don't have a right to endanger everyone around you.
When push comes to shove, I just don't think it's ethical to force people to take vaccines (or any medicine) against their will.
By that line of thinking, we'd still have smallpox to worry about.
A lot of... less than great stuff was involved in eradicating smallpox (e.g. vaccination raids), so I don't know that this is a great example. Also, I said it was unethical not that it wouldn't have a positive benefit (particularly for those whose rights weren't violated).
Yes, it was. And because of that, smallpox no longer exists. It killed 300+ million people in the 77 years of the 20th century before we eradicated it, so forcing people to withstand a moment's inconvenience and wear a bandage for a couple days easily saved many millions of lives, perhaps billions all said and done. And that's not counting the pain and suffering to survivors either.
Really, I think smallpox is the best argument anyone could make for forced vaccinations. On the pro side, you have the greatest triumph of the human species since the homo genus emerged (you could argue writing, agriculture, or splitting the atom, but I think the absurdly huge short and long term impacts combined with the fact it is one of the only things we've truly achieved as a species together sets it ahead), on the anti-vax side you have killing babies because the people involved read the wrong articles on the internet.
Honestly, while not relevant to the US, the afflicted areas should consider mandatory vaccination if human trials indicate a vaccine with sufficiently low side effects and good efficacy.
Ok, but surely you can appreciate that "the ends justify the means" is more than a little troubling ethically. Forcibly dragging children away from their parents to die in a pest house is not something I would put up there with the greatest achievements of man kind. Vaccinating people at gunpoint wouldn't be that high up on the list either. Both of which occurred with smallpox.
To put it another way, it shouldn't be necessary to forcibly vaccinate your population. Education and a little more carrot than stick can just as readily achieve the aim of eradicating disease (especially since 100% population immunity is not required). We've apparently managed it with a number of diseases since (present resurgences not withstanding).
We haven't. Smallpox is the only human disease that has been eradicated, ever, and it's because we didn't allow Nurgle cultists (in some cases literally, in other cases I'm being shitty to people who deserve to be shitty to) to stop us. Though we're pretty close with Guinea worm disease.
People should not have any negative moral right in regards to vaccination, where vaccination meets a cost / benefit to be used. You don't have a right to endanger everyone around you.
Do you have a right to refuse medical care?
If it does not present a potential harm to society, sure. To bring this back on thread, you don't get to go around bleeding on people if you are in the contagious stages of Ebola.
When push comes to shove, I just don't think it's ethical to force people to take vaccines (or any medicine) against their will.
By that line of thinking, we'd still have smallpox to worry about.
A lot of... less than great stuff was involved in eradicating smallpox (e.g. vaccination raids), so I don't know that this is a great example. Also, I said it was unethical not that it wouldn't have a positive benefit (particularly for those whose rights weren't violated).
Yes, it was. And because of that, smallpox no longer exists. It killed 300+ million people in the 77 years of the 20th century before we eradicated it, so forcing people to withstand a moment's inconvenience and wear a bandage for a couple days easily saved many millions of lives, perhaps billions all said and done. And that's not counting the pain and suffering to survivors either.
Really, I think smallpox is the best argument anyone could make for forced vaccinations. On the pro side, you have the greatest triumph of the human species since the homo genus emerged (you could argue writing, agriculture, or splitting the atom, but I think the absurdly huge short and long term impacts combined with the fact it is one of the only things we've truly achieved as a species together sets it ahead), on the anti-vax side you have killing babies because the people involved read the wrong articles on the internet.
Honestly, while not relevant to the US, the afflicted areas should consider mandatory vaccination if human trials indicate a vaccine with sufficiently low side effects and good efficacy.
Ok, but surely you can appreciate that "the ends justify the means" is more than a little troubling ethically. Forcibly dragging children away from their parents to die in a pest house is not something I would put up there with the greatest achievements of man kind. Vaccinating people at gunpoint wouldn't be that high up on the list either. Both of which occurred with smallpox.
To put it another way, it shouldn't be necessary to forcibly vaccinate your population. Education and a little more carrot than stick can just as readily achieve the aim of eradicating disease (especially since 100% population immunity is not required). We've apparently managed it with a number of diseases since (present resurgences not withstanding).
We haven't. Smallpox is the only human disease that has been eradicated, ever, and it's because we didn't allow Nurgle cultists (in some cases literally, in other cases I'm being shitty to people who deserve to be shitty to) to stop us. Though we're pretty close with Guinea worm disease.
People should not have any negative moral right in regards to vaccination, where vaccination meets a cost / benefit to be used. You don't have a right to endanger everyone around you.
Fair enough. Nearly eradicated then. It was still accomplished without raiding peoples houses and forcibly holding them down and injecting them against their will.
More accurately, you are saying that people's negative right, which they have regardless of what you might wish, is superseded by the potential that they get infected and might endanger someone else who wasn't able to get the vaccine for themselves. And for that potential, you are willing to violate their right to decide what goes in their body. I'm not prepared to go that far personally.
I get what you're saying, and honestly vaccination shouldn't be that big of a deal for most of us. Enough to provide herd immunity against most diseases for which we have vaccines, I'd wager.
Actually back on topic, I don't think you will have trouble getting a vast majority of people interested in an Ebola vaccine as the unreasonable panic in the US should indicate.
When push comes to shove, I just don't think it's ethical to force people to take vaccines (or any medicine) against their will.
By that line of thinking, we'd still have smallpox to worry about.
A lot of... less than great stuff was involved in eradicating smallpox (e.g. vaccination raids), so I don't know that this is a great example. Also, I said it was unethical not that it wouldn't have a positive benefit (particularly for those whose rights weren't violated).
Yes, it was. And because of that, smallpox no longer exists. It killed 300+ million people in the 77 years of the 20th century before we eradicated it, so forcing people to withstand a moment's inconvenience and wear a bandage for a couple days easily saved many millions of lives, perhaps billions all said and done. And that's not counting the pain and suffering to survivors either.
Really, I think smallpox is the best argument anyone could make for forced vaccinations. On the pro side, you have the greatest triumph of the human species since the homo genus emerged (you could argue writing, agriculture, or splitting the atom, but I think the absurdly huge short and long term impacts combined with the fact it is one of the only things we've truly achieved as a species together sets it ahead), on the anti-vax side you have killing babies because the people involved read the wrong articles on the internet.
Honestly, while not relevant to the US, the afflicted areas should consider mandatory vaccination if human trials indicate a vaccine with sufficiently low side effects and good efficacy.
Ok, but surely you can appreciate that "the ends justify the means" is more than a little troubling ethically. Forcibly dragging children away from their parents to die in a pest house is not something I would put up there with the greatest achievements of man kind. Vaccinating people at gunpoint wouldn't be that high up on the list either. Both of which occurred with smallpox.
To put it another way, it shouldn't be necessary to forcibly vaccinate your population. Education and a little more carrot than stick can just as readily achieve the aim of eradicating disease (especially since 100% population immunity is not required). We've apparently managed it with a number of diseases since (present resurgences not withstanding).
We haven't. Smallpox is the only human disease that has been eradicated, ever, and it's because we didn't allow Nurgle cultists (in some cases literally, in other cases I'm being shitty to people who deserve to be shitty to) to stop us. Though we're pretty close with Guinea worm disease.
People should not have any negative moral right in regards to vaccination, where vaccination meets a cost / benefit to be used. You don't have a right to endanger everyone around you.
Do you have a right to refuse medical care?
Infectious diseases are their own thing. If an adult wants to be weird and refuse blood transfusions, so be it. We also have procedures for forcible treatment of dangerous mentally ill people, so there is a standard for forced treatment to avoid danger to the community, which can be a more ambiguous than a diagnosed infectious disease.
When push comes to shove, I just don't think it's ethical to force people to take vaccines (or any medicine) against their will.
By that line of thinking, we'd still have smallpox to worry about.
A lot of... less than great stuff was involved in eradicating smallpox (e.g. vaccination raids), so I don't know that this is a great example. Also, I said it was unethical not that it wouldn't have a positive benefit (particularly for those whose rights weren't violated).
Yes, it was. And because of that, smallpox no longer exists. It killed 300+ million people in the 77 years of the 20th century before we eradicated it, so forcing people to withstand a moment's inconvenience and wear a bandage for a couple days easily saved many millions of lives, perhaps billions all said and done. And that's not counting the pain and suffering to survivors either.
Really, I think smallpox is the best argument anyone could make for forced vaccinations. On the pro side, you have the greatest triumph of the human species since the homo genus emerged (you could argue writing, agriculture, or splitting the atom, but I think the absurdly huge short and long term impacts combined with the fact it is one of the only things we've truly achieved as a species together sets it ahead), on the anti-vax side you have killing babies because the people involved read the wrong articles on the internet.
Honestly, while not relevant to the US, the afflicted areas should consider mandatory vaccination if human trials indicate a vaccine with sufficiently low side effects and good efficacy.
Ok, but surely you can appreciate that "the ends justify the means" is more than a little troubling ethically. Forcibly dragging children away from their parents to die in a pest house is not something I would put up there with the greatest achievements of man kind. Vaccinating people at gunpoint wouldn't be that high up on the list either. Both of which occurred with smallpox.
To put it another way, it shouldn't be necessary to forcibly vaccinate your population. Education and a little more carrot than stick can just as readily achieve the aim of eradicating disease (especially since 100% population immunity is not required). We've apparently managed it with a number of diseases since (present resurgences not withstanding).
We haven't. Smallpox is the only human disease that has been eradicated, ever, and it's because we didn't allow Nurgle cultists (in some cases literally, in other cases I'm being shitty to people who deserve to be shitty to) to stop us. Though we're pretty close with Guinea worm disease.
People should not have any negative moral right in regards to vaccination, where vaccination meets a cost / benefit to be used. You don't have a right to endanger everyone around you.
When push comes to shove, I just don't think it's ethical to force people to take vaccines (or any medicine) against their will.
By that line of thinking, we'd still have smallpox to worry about.
A lot of... less than great stuff was involved in eradicating smallpox (e.g. vaccination raids), so I don't know that this is a great example. Also, I said it was unethical not that it wouldn't have a positive benefit (particularly for those whose rights weren't violated).
Yes, it was. And because of that, smallpox no longer exists. It killed 300+ million people in the 77 years of the 20th century before we eradicated it, so forcing people to withstand a moment's inconvenience and wear a bandage for a couple days easily saved many millions of lives, perhaps billions all said and done. And that's not counting the pain and suffering to survivors either.
Really, I think smallpox is the best argument anyone could make for forced vaccinations. On the pro side, you have the greatest triumph of the human species since the homo genus emerged (you could argue writing, agriculture, or splitting the atom, but I think the absurdly huge short and long term impacts combined with the fact it is one of the only things we've truly achieved as a species together sets it ahead), on the anti-vax side you have killing babies because the people involved read the wrong articles on the internet.
Honestly, while not relevant to the US, the afflicted areas should consider mandatory vaccination if human trials indicate a vaccine with sufficiently low side effects and good efficacy.
Ok, but surely you can appreciate that "the ends justify the means" is more than a little troubling ethically. Forcibly dragging children away from their parents to die in a pest house is not something I would put up there with the greatest achievements of man kind. Vaccinating people at gunpoint wouldn't be that high up on the list either. Both of which occurred with smallpox.
To put it another way, it shouldn't be necessary to forcibly vaccinate your population. Education and a little more carrot than stick can just as readily achieve the aim of eradicating disease (especially since 100% population immunity is not required). We've apparently managed it with a number of diseases since (present resurgences not withstanding).
We haven't. Smallpox is the only human disease that has been eradicated, ever, and it's because we didn't allow Nurgle cultists (in some cases literally, in other cases I'm being shitty to people who deserve to be shitty to) to stop us. Though we're pretty close with Guinea worm disease.
People should not have any negative moral right in regards to vaccination, where vaccination meets a cost / benefit to be used. You don't have a right to endanger everyone around you.
Do you have a right to refuse medical care?
In so much that it doesn't kill someone else, probably.
If you had yourself surgically attached to someone's jugular and you were dying of gangrene, I'm not sure the doctors would give a fuck what you had to say.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
When push comes to shove, I just don't think it's ethical to force people to take vaccines (or any medicine) against their will.
By that line of thinking, we'd still have smallpox to worry about.
A lot of... less than great stuff was involved in eradicating smallpox (e.g. vaccination raids), so I don't know that this is a great example. Also, I said it was unethical not that it wouldn't have a positive benefit (particularly for those whose rights weren't violated).
Yes, it was. And because of that, smallpox no longer exists. It killed 300+ million people in the 77 years of the 20th century before we eradicated it, so forcing people to withstand a moment's inconvenience and wear a bandage for a couple days easily saved many millions of lives, perhaps billions all said and done. And that's not counting the pain and suffering to survivors either.
Really, I think smallpox is the best argument anyone could make for forced vaccinations. On the pro side, you have the greatest triumph of the human species since the homo genus emerged (you could argue writing, agriculture, or splitting the atom, but I think the absurdly huge short and long term impacts combined with the fact it is one of the only things we've truly achieved as a species together sets it ahead), on the anti-vax side you have killing babies because the people involved read the wrong articles on the internet.
Honestly, while not relevant to the US, the afflicted areas should consider mandatory vaccination if human trials indicate a vaccine with sufficiently low side effects and good efficacy.
Ok, but surely you can appreciate that "the ends justify the means" is more than a little troubling ethically. Forcibly dragging children away from their parents to die in a pest house is not something I would put up there with the greatest achievements of man kind. Vaccinating people at gunpoint wouldn't be that high up on the list either. Both of which occurred with smallpox.
To put it another way, it shouldn't be necessary to forcibly vaccinate your population. Education and a little more carrot than stick can just as readily achieve the aim of eradicating disease (especially since 100% population immunity is not required). We've apparently managed it with a number of diseases since (present resurgences not withstanding).
We haven't. Smallpox is the only human disease that has been eradicated, ever, and it's because we didn't allow Nurgle cultists (in some cases literally, in other cases I'm being shitty to people who deserve to be shitty to) to stop us. Though we're pretty close with Guinea worm disease.
People should not have any negative moral right in regards to vaccination, where vaccination meets a cost / benefit to be used. You don't have a right to endanger everyone around you.
Do you have a right to refuse medical care?
Not the kind of weird absolute that people always turn this discussion into.
But the people who think they have a right to refuse vaccines though almost uniformly are in fact vaccinated themselves. What they're actually trying to claim is the right to enforce their stupid opinions on their dependents. And the state and society at large, broadly, takes a much dimmer view of that kind of behavior and rightly so - children are not the legal property of the parents to do with as they wish.
Just make it fucking negligence to not have your kid vaccinated. Sure bitch all you want. You can bitch that you should be free to starve your kid too, but guess what, you can't.
How about "you're free to not vaccinate yourself, but you're not free to choose for your kids, a panel of 12 healthcare professionals chosen at random will decide, based on majority, if your child should get vaccinated"?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
When push comes to shove, I just don't think it's ethical to force people to take vaccines (or any medicine) against their will.
By that line of thinking, we'd still have smallpox to worry about.
A lot of... less than great stuff was involved in eradicating smallpox (e.g. vaccination raids), so I don't know that this is a great example. Also, I said it was unethical not that it wouldn't have a positive benefit (particularly for those whose rights weren't violated).
Yes, it was. And because of that, smallpox no longer exists. It killed 300+ million people in the 77 years of the 20th century before we eradicated it, so forcing people to withstand a moment's inconvenience and wear a bandage for a couple days easily saved many millions of lives, perhaps billions all said and done. And that's not counting the pain and suffering to survivors either.
Really, I think smallpox is the best argument anyone could make for forced vaccinations. On the pro side, you have the greatest triumph of the human species since the homo genus emerged (you could argue writing, agriculture, or splitting the atom, but I think the absurdly huge short and long term impacts combined with the fact it is one of the only things we've truly achieved as a species together sets it ahead), on the anti-vax side you have killing babies because the people involved read the wrong articles on the internet.
Honestly, while not relevant to the US, the afflicted areas should consider mandatory vaccination if human trials indicate a vaccine with sufficiently low side effects and good efficacy.
Ok, but surely you can appreciate that "the ends justify the means" is more than a little troubling ethically. Forcibly dragging children away from their parents to die in a pest house is not something I would put up there with the greatest achievements of man kind. Vaccinating people at gunpoint wouldn't be that high up on the list either. Both of which occurred with smallpox.
To put it another way, it shouldn't be necessary to forcibly vaccinate your population. Education and a little more carrot than stick can just as readily achieve the aim of eradicating disease (especially since 100% population immunity is not required). We've apparently managed it with a number of diseases since (present resurgences not withstanding).
We haven't. Smallpox is the only human disease that has been eradicated, ever, and it's because we didn't allow Nurgle cultists (in some cases literally, in other cases I'm being shitty to people who deserve to be shitty to) to stop us. Though we're pretty close with Guinea worm disease.
People should not have any negative moral right in regards to vaccination, where vaccination meets a cost / benefit to be used. You don't have a right to endanger everyone around you.
Do you have a right to refuse medical care?
Exhibit A: Psychiatric holds.
Exhibit B: Forcible Quarantines.
Involuntary committal for psychiatric patients is a much more severe infringement on personal rights both positive and negative. The justification is that the person is an immediate risk to themselves/others or are incapable of making decisions for themselves. Neither of these is the case with forced vaccination.
Quarantines are restricting a right to go where you please for a (generally) short period of time, which I would argue is less egregious ethically. Also, it isn't medical care. It's just isolation. If you refused medical treatment while in quarantine, I think they would ethically need to abide by your decision.
edit: and quarantines also carry the notion of more immediate danger, which again increases the justification for it's use.
How about "you're free to not vaccinate yourself, but you're not free to choose for your kids, a panel of 12 healthcare professionals chosen at random will decide, based on majority, if your child should get vaccinated"?
How about "you're free to not vaccinate yourself, but you're not free to choose for your kids, a panel of 12 healthcare professionals chosen at random will decide, based on majority, if your child should get vaccinated"?
Bold: People don't like to hear that.
Underline: Holy overhead.
Pft, it doesn't have to be real.
But like Mvrck said, you don't get to starve your children to death, why is this any different?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Involuntary committal for psychiatric patients is a much more severe infringement on personal rights both positive and negative. The justification is that the person is an immediate risk to themselves/others or are incapable of making decisions for themselves. Neither of these is the case with forced vaccination.
Quarantines are restricting a right to go where you please for a (generally) short period of time, which I would argue is less egregious ethically. Also, it isn't medical care. It's just isolation. If you refused medical treatment while in quarantine, I think they would ethically need to abide by your decision.
edit: and quarantines also carry the notion of more immediate danger, which again increases the justification for it's use.
Also, it's a notion of degree. Starvation is imminently bad.
Refusal to vaccinate is nebulously bad. It's entirely possible you will go your entire life without needing any of the vaccines you have received, in which case failure to vaccinate your child didn't put them in any harm whatsoever. Vaccination is all about managing risk.
Vaccination is about herd immunity. You break herd immunity, you've basically done nothing at all.
Herd immunity works by immunizing most everyone. The reason why it's important is because you can't immunize everyone. There are people, such as myself and others, that can't get every vaccine, but by ensuring 99% of everyone getting immunized, I am protected from the disease.
It's not about you, it's about us. And more importantly, it's about those of us who are the most sick.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Vaccination is about herd immunity. You break herd immunity, you've basically done nothing at all.
Herd immunity works by immunizing most everyone. The reason why it's important is because you can't immunize everyone. There are people, such as myself and others, that can't get every vaccine, but by ensuring 99% of everyone getting immunized, I am protected from the disease.
It's not about you, it's about us. And more importantly, it's about those of us who are the most sick.
I understand that, but it doesn't change anything I said. We vaccinate everyone we can because we don't have an oracle to tell us who will actually become infected with the disease, but the fact remains that not getting vaccinated does not automatically equate to someone dying. Hence, nebulously harmful.
But that's the problem, once people start opting out for nefarious claims, it moves from nebulous to imminent. How much? That's about statistics and luck.
But I guess back to Ebola.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Vaccination is about herd immunity. You break herd immunity, you've basically done nothing at all.
Herd immunity works by immunizing most everyone. The reason why it's important is because you can't immunize everyone. There are people, such as myself and others, that can't get every vaccine, but by ensuring 99% of everyone getting immunized, I am protected from the disease.
It's not about you, it's about us. And more importantly, it's about those of us who are the most sick.
I understand that, but it doesn't change anything I said. We vaccinate everyone we can because we don't have an oracle to tell us who will actually become infected with the disease, but the fact remains that not getting vaccinated does not automatically equate to someone dying. Hence, nebulously harmful.
The number of people not getting vaccinated these days has lead to a lot more people dying of diseases that they wouldn't have if the vaccination numbers were up like they used to be. There's nothing nebulous about the harm that's being caused.
Ideally people like Jenny McCarthy would just fuck her cactus and everyone would get vaccinated because not doing that is dumb as fuck.
Forcing people to is just a moral quagmire I'd prefer not to have to touch, and we wouldn't be doing so if it wasn't for dipshit anti-vaccers.
I mean, I guess if you forced the issue, I'd rather force the vaccines, but I'm not happy about it.
+5
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
I could turn this into an Ebola and Other Infectious Diseases thread if people want. It's not like there's only one nasty disease outbreak in the world right now.
Vaccination is about herd immunity. You break herd immunity, you've basically done nothing at all.
Herd immunity works by immunizing most everyone. The reason why it's important is because you can't immunize everyone. There are people, such as myself and others, that can't get every vaccine, but by ensuring 99% of everyone getting immunized, I am protected from the disease.
It's not about you, it's about us. And more importantly, it's about those of us who are the most sick.
I understand that, but it doesn't change anything I said. We vaccinate everyone we can because we don't have an oracle to tell us who will actually become infected with the disease, but the fact remains that not getting vaccinated does not automatically equate to someone dying. Hence, nebulously harmful.
The number of people not getting vaccinated these days has lead to a lot more people dying of diseases that they wouldn't have if the vaccination numbers were up like they used to be. There's nothing nebulous about the harm that's being caused.
On a macro level absolutely, and there is certainly more we could be doing to encourage people to get vaccinated. On an individual level however, the amount of harm caused by any single person not receiving a vaccination is incredibly vague. They might not ever come in contact with the disease, or they might get it and not pass it on to anyone else, or they might get it and pass it on to a hundred people in the middle of a crowded airport and start a chain reaction leading to a pandemic.
I'm certainly not advocating a blase approach to the problem. I'm simply drawing a line about how far I'm willing to go in violating an individual's rights for "the greater good".
Vaccination is about herd immunity. You break herd immunity, you've basically done nothing at all.
Herd immunity works by immunizing most everyone. The reason why it's important is because you can't immunize everyone. There are people, such as myself and others, that can't get every vaccine, but by ensuring 99% of everyone getting immunized, I am protected from the disease.
It's not about you, it's about us. And more importantly, it's about those of us who are the most sick.
I understand that, but it doesn't change anything I said. We vaccinate everyone we can because we don't have an oracle to tell us who will actually become infected with the disease, but the fact remains that not getting vaccinated does not automatically equate to someone dying. Hence, nebulously harmful.
The number of people not getting vaccinated these days has lead to a lot more people dying of diseases that they wouldn't have if the vaccination numbers were up like they used to be. There's nothing nebulous about the harm that's being caused.
On a macro level absolutely, and there is certainly more we could be doing to encourage people to get vaccinated. On an individual level however, the amount of harm caused by any single person not receiving a vaccination is incredibly vague. They might not ever come in contact with the disease, or they might get it and not pass it on to anyone else, or they might get it and pass it on to a hundred people in the middle of a crowded airport and start a chain reaction leading to a pandemic.
I'm certainly not advocating a blase approach to the problem. I'm simply drawing a line about how far I'm willing to go in violating an individual's rights for "the greater good".
I advocate for a system where we make that risk not-vague. If you don't vaccinate your children against X, we'll take 1 of them and infect them with X. Let us know if you want us to vaccinate your other children. Problem solved.
I could turn this into an Ebola and Other Infectious Diseases thread if people want. It's not like there's only one nasty disease outbreak in the world right now.
Sounds like a good idea, otherwise I don't see this train getting back on track
I could turn this into an Ebola and Other Infectious Diseases thread if people want. It's not like there's only one nasty disease outbreak in the world right now.
Sounds like a good idea, otherwise I don't see this train getting back on track
Yeah, we are running out of Ebola in 'Murica stories it seems. Which is good.
Posts
Yes, it was. And because of that, smallpox no longer exists. It killed 300+ million people in the 77 years of the 20th century before we eradicated it, so forcing people to withstand a moment's inconvenience and wear a bandage for a couple days easily saved many millions of lives, perhaps billions all said and done. And that's not counting the pain and suffering to survivors either.
Really, I think smallpox is the best argument anyone could make for forced vaccinations. On the pro side, you have the greatest triumph of the human species since the homo genus emerged (you could argue writing, agriculture, or splitting the atom, but I think the absurdly huge short and long term impacts combined with the fact it is one of the only things we've truly achieved as a species together sets it ahead), on the anti-vax side you have killing babies because the people involved read the wrong articles on the internet.
Honestly, while not relevant to the US, the afflicted areas should consider mandatory vaccination if human trials indicate a vaccine with sufficiently low side effects and good efficacy.
Ok, but surely you can appreciate that "the ends justify the means" is more than a little troubling ethically. Forcibly dragging children away from their parents to die in a pest house is not something I would put up there with the greatest achievements of man kind. Vaccinating people at gunpoint wouldn't be that high up on the list either. Both of which occurred with smallpox.
To put it another way, it shouldn't be necessary to forcibly vaccinate your population. Education and a little more carrot than stick can just as readily achieve the aim of eradicating disease (especially since 100% population immunity is not required). We've apparently managed it with a number of diseases since (present resurgences not withstanding).
Smallpox vaccine has a fairly high incidence of problems stemming from it, some permanent (1k in 1mil), some short term (1 in 3). Its fairly common to spread vaccinia outside of the vaccination area and to other people or to contract it themselves. Because it isn't a shot, it's also a lot harder to contain after the area has been inoculated.
There are reasons why smallpox vaccine isn't made available to the public at large.
Not all diseases (*coughEBOLAcoughONcoughTOPIC*) work that way, which makes the efficacy of immunization campaigns much more questionable, and therefore the morality of enforcing them a lot more shady.
We haven't. Smallpox is the only human disease that has been eradicated, ever, and it's because we didn't allow Nurgle cultists (in some cases literally, in other cases I'm being shitty to people who deserve to be shitty to) to stop us. Though we're pretty close with Guinea worm disease.
People should not have any negative moral right in regards to vaccination, where vaccination meets a cost / benefit to be used. You don't have a right to endanger everyone around you.
Do you have a right to refuse medical care?
If it does not present a potential harm to society, sure. To bring this back on thread, you don't get to go around bleeding on people if you are in the contagious stages of Ebola.
Fair enough. Nearly eradicated then. It was still accomplished without raiding peoples houses and forcibly holding them down and injecting them against their will.
More accurately, you are saying that people's negative right, which they have regardless of what you might wish, is superseded by the potential that they get infected and might endanger someone else who wasn't able to get the vaccine for themselves. And for that potential, you are willing to violate their right to decide what goes in their body. I'm not prepared to go that far personally.
I get what you're saying, and honestly vaccination shouldn't be that big of a deal for most of us. Enough to provide herd immunity against most diseases for which we have vaccines, I'd wager.
Actually back on topic, I don't think you will have trouble getting a vast majority of people interested in an Ebola vaccine as the unreasonable panic in the US should indicate.
Infectious diseases are their own thing. If an adult wants to be weird and refuse blood transfusions, so be it. We also have procedures for forcible treatment of dangerous mentally ill people, so there is a standard for forced treatment to avoid danger to the community, which can be a more ambiguous than a diagnosed infectious disease.
Exhibit A: Psychiatric holds.
Exhibit B: Forcible Quarantines.
In so much that it doesn't kill someone else, probably.
If you had yourself surgically attached to someone's jugular and you were dying of gangrene, I'm not sure the doctors would give a fuck what you had to say.
Not the kind of weird absolute that people always turn this discussion into.
But the people who think they have a right to refuse vaccines though almost uniformly are in fact vaccinated themselves. What they're actually trying to claim is the right to enforce their stupid opinions on their dependents. And the state and society at large, broadly, takes a much dimmer view of that kind of behavior and rightly so - children are not the legal property of the parents to do with as they wish.
If you don't, it doesn't work.
http://www.software3d.com/Home/Vax/Immunity.php
Involuntary committal for psychiatric patients is a much more severe infringement on personal rights both positive and negative. The justification is that the person is an immediate risk to themselves/others or are incapable of making decisions for themselves. Neither of these is the case with forced vaccination.
Quarantines are restricting a right to go where you please for a (generally) short period of time, which I would argue is less egregious ethically. Also, it isn't medical care. It's just isolation. If you refused medical treatment while in quarantine, I think they would ethically need to abide by your decision.
edit: and quarantines also carry the notion of more immediate danger, which again increases the justification for it's use.
Bold: People don't like to hear that.
Underline: Holy overhead.
Pft, it doesn't have to be real.
But like Mvrck said, you don't get to starve your children to death, why is this any different?
Hospitals around here have some pretty kick ass food!
There's a Hero Burger in a hospital near my office I visit every so often. Also a Wing Machine that has awesome fries.
As long as you're able to make informed decisions, I think you're correct (legally). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
You can be quarantined, fined, punished, etc. for refusing a vaccine, but it's not legal to physically force treatment.
Smartasses.
Also, it's a notion of degree. Starvation is imminently bad.
Refusal to vaccinate is nebulously bad. It's entirely possible you will go your entire life without needing any of the vaccines you have received, in which case failure to vaccinate your child didn't put them in any harm whatsoever. Vaccination is all about managing risk.
Herd immunity works by immunizing most everyone. The reason why it's important is because you can't immunize everyone. There are people, such as myself and others, that can't get every vaccine, but by ensuring 99% of everyone getting immunized, I am protected from the disease.
It's not about you, it's about us. And more importantly, it's about those of us who are the most sick.
I understand that, but it doesn't change anything I said. We vaccinate everyone we can because we don't have an oracle to tell us who will actually become infected with the disease, but the fact remains that not getting vaccinated does not automatically equate to someone dying. Hence, nebulously harmful.
But I guess back to Ebola.
The number of people not getting vaccinated these days has lead to a lot more people dying of diseases that they wouldn't have if the vaccination numbers were up like they used to be. There's nothing nebulous about the harm that's being caused.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Forcing people to is just a moral quagmire I'd prefer not to have to touch, and we wouldn't be doing so if it wasn't for dipshit anti-vaccers.
I mean, I guess if you forced the issue, I'd rather force the vaccines, but I'm not happy about it.
I'm not happy about force vaccination either, because it shouldn't be something we have to force people to do!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
On a macro level absolutely, and there is certainly more we could be doing to encourage people to get vaccinated. On an individual level however, the amount of harm caused by any single person not receiving a vaccination is incredibly vague. They might not ever come in contact with the disease, or they might get it and not pass it on to anyone else, or they might get it and pass it on to a hundred people in the middle of a crowded airport and start a chain reaction leading to a pandemic.
I'm certainly not advocating a blase approach to the problem. I'm simply drawing a line about how far I'm willing to go in violating an individual's rights for "the greater good".
I advocate for a system where we make that risk not-vague. If you don't vaccinate your children against X, we'll take 1 of them and infect them with X. Let us know if you want us to vaccinate your other children. Problem solved.
(I'm kidding.)
(Well. Half-kidding.)
Sounds like a good idea, otherwise I don't see this train getting back on track
Yeah, we are running out of Ebola in 'Murica stories it seems. Which is good.
Africa, on the other hand, still needs more assistance.