Self-identified Libertarians and Mandatory Vaccines (take 2)

[Emily's Cat]

I generally don't identify publically as libertarian because I'm more left-lib/minarchist and because the word currently carries some really unpleasant connotations and associations that aren't anywhere near my beliefs.

I'm also a strong believer in immunizations. I saw the kids a little younger than me who were affected in utero during the early 60s rubella epidemic. I was lucky enough to get immunized for measles before getting it, but I had chickenpox and mumps.

My paternal ancestors were almost wiped out by diphtheria epidemics in the 19th century.

At least when my kids were in school, all a parent had to do was sign a form saying they had ethical or religious objections to immunizations, and that was that. I'm hoping after the pertussis epidemics and measles outbreaks that have swept the area the past few years that they're cracking down on those. There are enough things out there we *can't* immunize against (like the midwestern enterovirus outbreak that appears to have arrived here as well), why should we risk the ones we *can* protect against?

I didn't get a choice. I went to school on a military base. They just busted out the school nurse and we all lined up and got shots. Seemed to be a pretty good approach to me. Just make them required at certain stages as part of what school supplies - regardless of whether it's public or private school!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Public shunning?

If you don't vaccinate your kids, then you are required to move to a small enclave of cave-dwellers in the middle of some desert, far away from all the civilized people that you're putting at risk!

 

[Corsair 115]

Failure to vaccinate should be a crime.

I don't know about it being a 'crime' but I would point out failing to vaccinate may well result in serious health complications to others, including death in some instances.

 

[theprestige]

I don't know about it being a 'crime' but I would point out failing to vaccinate may well result in serious health complications to others, including death in some instances.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Rational people can't even figure out if it should be a crime or not, but somehow Diogenes still imagines he can read some extreme anti-science implications in libertarian opposition to such a policy.

 

[Loss Leader]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Rational people can't even figure out if it should be a crime or not, but somehow Diogenes still imagines he can read some extreme anti-science implications in libertarian opposition to such a policy.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The choice is not crime or nothing. There are many ways of encouraging compliance - school policy, lower health and life insurance premiums, public education, flat-out bribery.

Simply because a person doesn't believe people should be vaccinated at the point of a gun doesn't mean the person doesn't believe people should be vaccinated.

 

[sunmaster14]

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The choice is not crime or nothing. There are many ways of encouraging compliance - school policy, lower health and life insurance premiums, public education, flat-out bribery.

Simply because a person doesn't believe people should be vaccinated at the point of a gun doesn't mean the person doesn't believe people should be vaccinated.

But this is completely avoiding the question.

For the record, I think that under certain extreme circumstances, which don't currently exist, and may never exist, it is appropriate to vaccinate people at the point of a gun. There are libertarians who agree with me on this, and there are libertarians who adamantly disagree. The former like to call themselves "practical" libertarians, and call the latter "principle" libertarians. The latter like to call themselves libertarians, and call the former authoritarians.

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm so confused. Whom in this thread is actually arguing with anyone?

 

[deadrose]

Local public health officials are investigating a confirmed case of measles infection in a traveler who was at Sea-Tac airport during the contagious period. The traveler was likely exposed to measles outside of the U.S.

Before receiving the measles diagnosis, the traveler was at Sea-Tac Airport and the Courtyard Seattle Federal Way Hotel's restaurant, The Bistro. Anyone who was at Sea-Tac Airport or The Bistro during the following times was possibly exposed to measles:

http://www.king5.com/story/news/health/2014/09/13/public-exposure-to-measles-at-sea-tac-airport/15611211/

This is the problem I have with people choosing not to immunize (and there are many around here who go that route). They're choosing to risk the health and safety of a lot of other people - people who may be immunocompromised for one of many reasons, for instance.

Maybe we should make them wear bells like medieval lepers, or some other method of warning people from a distance. Surely if they have the right to refuse immunization, others should have the right to know that they could be a walking contagion. I'd be willing to let them refuse on those terms, as long as the rest of us were able to refuse to sit in a restaurant, ride public transportation, go to school with, or wait on them in stores.

Actions have consequences, after all.

 

[Mudcat]

Note that the answer I selected (4th) is not quite my choice, just closest. My actual choice would be (for the second part of the statement): and I fully support required vaccinations with no religious or other outs.

What about allergies and other medical concerns that could prohibit a person from taking a vaccine?

 

[Diogenes]

...But you're not really here to have that discussion with me: You're looking for an argument with some libertarian who isn't even here at all, as far as I can tell.

It seems to me that your inquiry is essentially this: Do libertarians prefer personal freedom over scientific truth?

That's the question. I'm only referring to those others as I lack a sufficient pool of respondents here as of that point and I don't know what the actual representative perspective among people that identify as libertarians is. I can't look at any party platform for that, either, as it looks like only 15% of self-identified libertarians identify as being "3rd-party" whereas most are either Republican (45%) or independent (35%). (Provided that this was a good survey: http://publicreligion.org/2013/11/libertariangotw/ )

 

[Diogenes]

I think that the rights of others end at my skin.

Except others are put at risk when opting against vaccinations for non-medical reasons.

I don't think the actual medical or religious objectors are sufficient to put herd immunity at risk.

Not so much the case.

http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

ETA: A look at Personal Belief Exemptions in California schools: http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth...oubled-in-7-years-look-up-your-school-online/

(and others)

A society that would forcibly inject people with substances they don't understand and fear is no more palatable a society to me than one that would force those individuals to wear identifying symbols so that others might avoid getting close to them.

That the people don't understand or the society doesn't understand? I'm guessing people. There's no secret, though, the science is pretty accessible.

 

[Diogenes]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Rational people can't even figure out if it should be a crime or not, but somehow Diogenes still imagines he can read some extreme anti-science implications in libertarian opposition to such a policy.

Actually more because I do science rather than law. Before the proliferation of non-medical exemptions we had a reasonable vaccination rate such that we didn't see the outbreaks we see now. So criminalizing might not be required to at least get back to where we had more coverage.

If by "anti-science" you mean holding a particular philosophy more "moral" than taking actions that we know reduce infection and death, then, yeah, I suppose so. But I don't actually know, as I'd thought I'd made clear, what the representative libertarian perspective is on this very real issue. ETA: or if there even is one.

 

[Beth]

Except others are put at risk when opting against vaccinations for non-medical reasons.

Yes, there is a slight risk. Just as there is a slight risk of harm from the vaccine itself. I'm not convinced that slight risk to others is sufficient justification for insisting that all individuals must accept the slight risk of vaccination even if they don't feel the benefit is sufficient for themselves personally.

Not so much the case.

http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

ETA: A look at Personal Belief Exemptions in California schools: http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth...oubled-in-7-years-look-up-your-school-online/

(and others)

I'm sorry,I didn't make myself clear. When I said "actual medical or religious objectors" I meant to exclude individuals who just don't want to have their children take certain vaccines or use a delayed schedule.

That the people don't understand or the society doesn't understand? I'm guessing people. There's no secret, though, the science is pretty accessible.

Yes, I meant people. The actual science is not that accessible. It takes quite a bit of effort to access and understand the actual scientific papers about it. Most parents of young children don't have the background education to understand the research. Instead, they rely on some other source to interpret the science and make recommendations. That means, who are they going to trust?

 

[Diogenes]

Yes, there is a slight risk. Just as there is a slight risk of harm from the vaccine itself. I'm not convinced that slight risk to others is sufficient justification for insisting that all individuals must accept the slight risk of vaccination even if they don't feel the benefit is sufficient for themselves personally.

Is your position that the risk of harm from being vaccinated is about equivalent to the risk of harm to others for not being vaccinated?

I'm sorry,I didn't make myself clear. When I said "actual medical or religious objectors" I meant to exclude individuals who just don't want to have their children take certain vaccines or use a delayed schedule.

You can tell which measles outbreaks are because of "actual religious objectors" and which are not? There other evidence that the delayed scheduled results in more completely missed vaccinations, this was in Oregon.

The actual science is not that accessible. It takes quite a bit of effort to access and understand the actual scientific papers about it. Most parents of young children don't have the background education to understand the research. Instead, they rely on some other source to interpret the science and make recommendations. That means, who are they going to trust?

In the case of most objectors-by-choice it isn't because they're trusting their pediatrician and are instead trusting anecdotes from peers and people selling things; including conspiracy theories.

What I mean by accessible is that there's not grand conspiracy to hide what vaccine ingredients are and what they, broadly, do. It does require conspiracy to think there's a massive cover-up by big pharma and the government.

 

[Beth]

Is your position that the risk of harm from being vaccinated is about equivalent to the risk of harm to others for not being vaccinated?

No, not really. However, I think the requiring vaccination of others is asking a great deal more than is asking you to tolerate others being unvaccinated. IOW, the cost to society due to the loss of individual freedom and autonomy is higher than the cost to society to allowing people to decline vaccinations.

You can tell which measles outbreaks are because of "actual religious objectors" and which are not?

No. My point is that the actual religious objectors are a small enough group (< 5%) such that if they were the only refusers, it would not endanger herd immunity. Likewise with the medical exemption. It's the people who are refusing because they don't think the vaccines are the best choice for their kids that are messing that up.

In the case of most objectors-by-choice it isn't because they're trusting their pediatrician and are instead trusting anecdotes from peers and people selling things; including conspiracy theories.

Yes. Why aren't they trusting the medical establishment? What needs to change?

Trust for the medical establishment will not be engendered by insisting on doing things according to their schedule. In the recent NOVA episode, one person talked about a parent raising concerns needed to be the beginning of a conversation, not the end of one. Making it a requirement is an attempt to end the conversation.

What I mean by accessible is that there's not grand conspiracy to hide what vaccine ingredients are and what they, broadly, do. It does require conspiracy to think there's a massive cover-up by big pharma and the government.

Okay. I agree there's no conspiracy as you are thinking of one. IMO, we can't trust the pharmaceutical companies for unbiased results. That's not a conspiracy theory though, just a general cynicism about how business works in the modern world.

 

[Travis]

Yes. Refusal to vaccinate should be a federal crime. Law enforcement agencies, in coordination with the FBI, should be authorized to subpoena medical records and take biological samples of anyone who cannot produce vaccination records on demand. Violators should be arrested, imprisoned, and compelled by force if necessary to undergo vaccination in the prison hospital.

Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be forced to give those children up to CPS, obviously.

Failure to vaccinate should be a crime.

You probably intended this as a joke but this is actually EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD SUPPORT.

My pro-authoritarianism streak really shows when it comes to this issue. I want noncompliance turned into something punishable in such a horrific fashion that parents lay awake at night worried that their already vaccinated children might not be vaccinated enough. I want there to be a constant and omnipresent anxiety in everyone that the special police will come and haul them off if they aren't up to snuff on all their boosters.

 

[Diogenes]

No, not really. However, I think the requiring vaccination of others is asking a great deal more than is asking you to tolerate others being unvaccinated. IOW, the cost to society due to the loss of individual freedom and autonomy is higher than the cost to society to allowing people to decline vaccinations.

Ok, you're in the more immoral to mandate than expose those that can't be vaccinated to increased mortality risk.

No. My point is that the actual religious objectors are a small enough group (< 5%) such that if they were the only refusers, it would not endanger herd immunity. Likewise with the medical exemption. It's the people who are refusing because they don't think the vaccines are the best choice for their kids that are messing that up.

Yet the non-medical exemption claims are growing, not stable, and are implicated in contributing to current outbreaks. I didn't claim anywhere that "actual" religious objectors were already breaking herd immunity, though I personally consider those claims based on imagination.

 

[ehcks]

What about allergies and other medical concerns that could prohibit a person from taking a vaccine?

I wanted to ask that, but I figured that the doctor doing the vaccination deciding that it's unsafe for a particular person isn't an "out." It's basic medical safety.

 

[ehcks]

Yes, there is a slight risk. Just as there is a slight risk of harm from the vaccine itself. I'm not convinced that slight risk to others is sufficient justification for insisting that all individuals must accept the slight risk of vaccination even if they don't feel the benefit is sufficient for themselves personally.

Equivocation.

Measles has killed millions of people. The measles vaccine has killed 0. They are not both "slight" risks.

 

[Diogenes]

Equivocation.

Measles has killed millions of people. The measles vaccine has killed 0. They are not both "slight" risks.

That, too. I was waiting to see if the good 'ole VAERS was going to get dragged-out first.