Z
Variable Constant
Mandatory vaccinations - and a fine of mandatory sterilization for parents who resist. Yay!
Beth
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,598
from the article linked:
Are the risks of contracting chickenpox or hepatitis B from being in school with an infected individual so severe that it should merit fines and/or jail time? You can make a case for diseases like polio and measles, but I don't think the argument is as strong for milder diseases like chickenpox or diseases that aren't spread via casual contact like hepatitus B. It will be interesting to see how this legal battle plays out.
my_wan
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,074
In the long run not necessarily. If a disease gets a foothold in a subset of the population while the remainder of the population resistant then the potential for mutations producing resistance is greatly increased. This would put vaccinated individuals at risk. It's not valid to argue that the vaccine is the actual culprit in drug resistance. This is because the less a given disease is replicated in the population the lower the chances of a resistant producing mutation. There is no better strategy against pathogen mutations than no pathogen to mutate.
http://www.atdn.org/simple/resistance.html
ZenFountain
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2007
- Messages
- 664
We'll all be enjoying the fine taste of liberty a lot more when diseases such as polio and measles are back in full force thanks to these morons. I agree with Darth Rotor, if parents refuse to vaccinate their children they should be barred from public schools. Libertarians should see this as negligent behavior that inherently tramples on the rights of others. My body is my property and maintaining good health is my responsibility, so if someone contracts a disease that was easily preventable and communicates it to me, they have taken away my right to maintain good health with their negligent behavior. It's as simple as that, end of story.
Last edited:
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
I have split your quote in two, because these are really two different issues. The first part deals with the consequences for children whose parents refuse to vaccinate them; the second part deals with the consequences for a person who has made their own choice to refuse a vaccination.
If you are a competent adult, you have every right to refuse vaccination for yourself. You are taking the risk on your own behalf. However, you are NOT endangering others; anyone who has been vaccinated cannot contract the disease, and anyone who hasn't has made the same choice as you, so their risk is their own, not yours. (This, of course, assumes that vaccination is free and universally available.)
But when it comes to your children, do you have the right to endanger them? If there is clear and compelling evidence that the dangers posed by the vaccine itself are greater than the risk of not being vaccinated, then yes, you should have the right to make that choice. But if the risk of not being vaccinated is greater than the dangers posed by the vaccine itself, then a parent's refusal to vaccinate their child is endangering their child, and the state has suficient reason to take action to protect the child.
I think it's pretty clear so far that there is NO clear and compelling evidence that the dangers posed by vaccines are greater than the risk of not being vaccinated. So I agree with Darth Rotor that children should be vaccinated; but I disagree that the appropriate punishment is to bar the children from public school. Many misguided parents would choose to send their children to private schools or home school them. I think fines are the first step toward compliance and, if necessary, then temporary removal of the child from the home and forced vaccination.
I am no fan of big government, but this isn't really a big government issue, it's a child protection issue. When you're old enough to make your own decisions, you can be stupid and refuse vaccination.
Last edited:
Well as I write this I am watching a news report on NECN about a new virulent of a cold virus(not flue, but rhino virus) that is deadly and have caused the deaths of 10 people and hospitalized nearly a 100. It is a "new version of an old virus" according to Dr. Schaffner. The old one was rarely seen and wasn't very dangerous. The new one kills some people, and not just the old and weak immune, one of the deaths was a 19 year old army recruit.
I don't know much about immunology so if I am off base please tell me, but in general isn't this how viruses basically evolve/adapt to become immune to vaccines and antibiotics. If a certain percentage of the population of virus is exposed to the anti-virus but it is not strong enough to kill it , the virus will adapt. Isn't this what the flue virus does every year?
So, FIRST - of the people who do get vaccinated there is a certain percentage for whom the vaccine does not work fully or at all. Therefor the analogy of poor diet is off base because I can't die from the fact that you have high cholesterol. But I can die if you are not vaccinated and for what ever reason the vaccine didn't work on me.
Second, there are those who suffer from certain illnesses who are compromised.
You, as a non-vaccinated person, could be killing them.
Third, people have made a fairly big stink about bio warfare. Things like small pox etc. If a certain percentage of our population is willingly exposing themselves to be susceptible to such diseases I (as an enemy to the US) would think about using this as a possible source to wreck havoc and create viruses or bio warfare that would allow these people to be carriers for a super virus that would become immune to the vaccines we get.
Not having extensive education in this field I don't know how far fetched this is. But I can't believe that it's WAY out there.
So, considering the social, personal and possibly national disaster these people could cause as a whole. YES, I would say that this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that the govt. should be involved in and KNOWS better(provided they are relying on science and not politics) than some herbal sucking woo worshiping nutter who doesn't want to vaccinate his kid because it will cause Autism.
I don't know much about immunology so if I am off base please tell me, but in general isn't this how viruses basically evolve/adapt to become immune to vaccines and antibiotics. If a certain percentage of the population of virus is exposed to the anti-virus but it is not strong enough to kill it , the virus will adapt. Isn't this what the flue virus does every year?
So, FIRST - of the people who do get vaccinated there is a certain percentage for whom the vaccine does not work fully or at all. Therefor the analogy of poor diet is off base because I can't die from the fact that you have high cholesterol. But I can die if you are not vaccinated and for what ever reason the vaccine didn't work on me.
Second, there are those who suffer from certain illnesses who are compromised.
You, as a non-vaccinated person, could be killing them.
Third, people have made a fairly big stink about bio warfare. Things like small pox etc. If a certain percentage of our population is willingly exposing themselves to be susceptible to such diseases I (as an enemy to the US) would think about using this as a possible source to wreck havoc and create viruses or bio warfare that would allow these people to be carriers for a super virus that would become immune to the vaccines we get.
Not having extensive education in this field I don't know how far fetched this is. But I can't believe that it's WAY out there.
So, considering the social, personal and possibly national disaster these people could cause as a whole. YES, I would say that this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that the govt. should be involved in and KNOWS better(provided they are relying on science and not politics) than some herbal sucking woo worshiping nutter who doesn't want to vaccinate his kid because it will cause Autism.
I am not a doctor and I don't play one on tv, BUT I believe that this statement is not correct. I know for a fact that if your immune compromised from AIDS, Chemo or radiation theropy you can contract diseases for which you have been vaccinated. Also, isn't this how the new TB that is immune to meds came about - also staff infections are notorious killers in hospitals.
Luciana
Skeptical Carioca
I want the government to obligate all children to be vaccinated. That's the least the government can do my for my well-being. The government already demands so much from me - taxes, in many shapes and forms; and behaviors, as law and ordinances - why can't it give me something back, that is, free mandatory vaccination for children?
Free, because even the poorest parent shouldn't use that as an excuse. Mandatory, because some people are lazy or irresponsible. And punishable, because putting the health of kid in risk is most definitely morally wrong.
And vaccinations should be free and mandatory because, personally, I don't want to see any child with polio or measles, not even one, anywhere. You can't select who is fit to be a parent, but a free mandatory vaccination guarantees this very minimum.
I can't believe the ivory tower some people seem to live in. Yes, it's in society's best interest that children don't get preventable diseases, if only because we're civilized and if taxes are not for that, what are they for? Give me more noble uses, I'm waiting. There are equally important uses, but not that many.
Free, because even the poorest parent shouldn't use that as an excuse. Mandatory, because some people are lazy or irresponsible. And punishable, because putting the health of kid in risk is most definitely morally wrong.
And vaccinations should be free and mandatory because, personally, I don't want to see any child with polio or measles, not even one, anywhere. You can't select who is fit to be a parent, but a free mandatory vaccination guarantees this very minimum.
I can't believe the ivory tower some people seem to live in. Yes, it's in society's best interest that children don't get preventable diseases, if only because we're civilized and if taxes are not for that, what are they for? Give me more noble uses, I'm waiting. There are equally important uses, but not that many.
I have lived in NY, CA, OH and now in MA. Between friends and family I know for a fact that in NY, CA and OH when I lived in those states( things might have changed since) and now in MA all vaccinations are free! There is a giant sign in my kids Ped office informing eveyone walking through the door to this fact, and I have recieved forms from school at the begining of each year of this as well. From other friends living in RI, CT and NH I believe that this is also the same.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
So you can win darwin awards for killing other people now? Many of those put at the most risk are those children who are for medical reasons unable to be safely vaccinated. But they deserve being killed or brain damaged because their parents had an unhealthy child I guess.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Um wrong, not everyone who is vaccinated is immune, a large percentage is but not everyone takes to every vaccine. So they could think that they are immune and you could well get them sick and harm them with your choice while they have none.
Dunno. Why don't you try it and see what happens? Let us know.
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
In this case? Yes.
About time! Better to get those kids vaccinated now than to wait until they're dying in some overcrowded emergency room.
So what if some bad parents go to jail? The ones who care about their kids' health will be the ones who get their kids vaccinated.
Donal
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,952
In some cases, yes. And that says something pretty bad about those parents.
I have a question for you:
If parents are starving a child, should the government step in?
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,394
STOP THINKING! This is about wielding power.
Molinaro
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 4,781
I disagree. By keeping the disease in circulation (among the non-vaccinated) you are allowING it greater opportunity to mutate into something that will infect the vaccinated population.
Last edited:
bluess
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2001
- Messages
- 3,431
I think a large part of this problem is that most people don't know what the course of the disease is like. They remember their childhood bout with chickenpox, and don't equate a week of itchiness with coughing blood into hankie; or passing so many stools that you die of dehydration and exhaustion; or are paralized and cannot breathe on your own.
Z
Variable Constant
If you live in Ohio, Oklahoma, or North Carolina - the three states I've lived in most recently - you can get immunizations for absolutely nothing at your local WIC office.
If you live near a large U.S. military base (at least up 'til 2001, when I left the military), you could likewise get immunizations absolutely free at the base hospital or the pharmacy.
If you live near a large U.S. military base (at least up 'til 2001, when I left the military), you could likewise get immunizations absolutely free at the base hospital or the pharmacy.
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
With you.
That bit in parens is not always the case, is it? Sad but true.
I'll play along and point out that a percentage of the population is at risk from vaccines, though I concede it's a small percentage. Granted, I am not convinced that in the case we are discussing that this is the basis for parental objection.
On shaky ground here, Shemp. Again, my problem may be my assumption that parents generally look after the welfare and health of their children. Do we actually know why this group of parents is being so stubborn? This isn't a onesy or twosy. This smells of fish.
Given the two cited, and the general success of them across the nation, I tend to agree.
Sorry to part company with you on that, but I have a problem with how far the State reaches into the home. The KISS principle and minimalist approach would argue that this is the simplest way to help incentivize a more favorable reaction. (I may also be dreaming.)
It is not misguided to home school your kids. Most home schooled kids I know are high achievers. Nor is it misguided to send your kids to private schools. Can the private schools be legitimately run if not in compliance with state health regs? I don't think so.
I can't believe I saw Shemp post that. (Due to your general "not big government position" with which I am in harmony.) However, I understand the practical concern for limiting the spread of disease. Disease tends to be more than one family's problem. Quarrantine is not so far off, historically, as a method for disease control.
They aren't the government's kids. I don't think a draconian response is appropriate. I understand, however, why there are other opinions on that.
DR
Last edited: