Stadler, you can't have it both ways. If you truly believe that all individuals have the right to choose for themselves, then that means that you must believe in at the very least creating a level playing field so to speak to enable everyone to have the opportunity to choose without fear of harm. You can't say everyone has the right to choose, so long as it falls in line with my beliefs. That anyone who cannot be vaccinated is just what, "shit out of luck" because forcing others to do something to help eliminate the spread of disease is wrong? I mean why don't we just allow people to not use public toilets to remove and control human waste? Isn't that the same thing? If we allowed people to just take a dump wherever they felt like it, that leads to the spread of disease quicker than just about anything you can imagine. Forcing people to use indoor plumbing in populated areas is a form of "control" is it not?
I am not 100% sure what you mean by the term, but if I am understanding you correctly, I absolutely do not believe in creating a level playing field. "Fear of harm"? Where is that guarantee? Removing the "fear of harm" - well, let's be honest, it can't be removed, so we lower it to the extent reasonable - is one of the examples of how we knowingly and with intent compromise our pure free will in the interest of the social contract. But having said that, I'm not at odds with you, I'm just saying that I believe we have to take the least restrictive means of accomplishing the goal. All I'm saying is this: I think we all agree that right now, it seems far too easy to run rough-shod over the social contract. Someone can apparently wake up one morning, have an epiphany that vaccines cause cancer and hemorrhoids and stop their children from being protected. We agree that is bad. All I'm saying is that if someone's epiphany is SO strong that they are willing to jump through all the hoops to get there, and are willing to bear all the consequences of being there, I don't think we should force them to cooperate. You use indoor plumbing, but - and hear me out on this - if I REALLY feel strongly enough, I CAN take a crap in the street if I so choose (I have literally seen that once in New York City, by the way). I will bear the consequences of that, but I can. But what about this example: we all seem to agree that vaccinations are best overall for society. What if, once it becomes apparent to the laypeople, that rapists and sex offenders are born that way (much like we've come to realize that sexual orientation is largely a characteristic we're born with) and someone gets the bright idea that anyone showing those cahracteristics should be sterilized for the good of society. Willing to go there? What's the difference with THAT?
People like Jenny McCarthy have done serious damage to the foundation of the vaccination effort. It used to be that people were just playing Russian Roulette before the various vaccines became available. Take Polio for instance, people lined up like crazy to get their families immunized once the vaccine was developed. Then it became more of an education thing. People who came from countries who didn't know about the importance of immunizations, and those who came from poorer area's who were either too illiterate or too poor to know why it was important or have the means to do so became the targets of the educational efforts. Then when the antivax movement really took off, it was an uphill battle for the health community because they were seen as co-conspirators in some vast effort to what, kill off kids?
Unless you have some medical reason NOT to be immunized, it should be mandatory. As part of the human race, there are certain expectations that should be required of all of us.
Again, I'm not arguing with you in concept. I do tend toward the elegant solution as opposed to the stop-gap ones, but in my defense, history is littered with stop-gap solutions that were later subsumed by the unintended consequences of the solution. Name a human catastrophe, and tell me honestly that you don't realize that almost every one STARTED with "here's a good idea" and was bolstered by the "this will be good for everyone, even if one or two individuals get their rights violated" and continued with "well, if they aren't going to willingly play along, we'll force them!"...
I want your outcome, I want to be careful how we get there.
And don't misunderstand me: I have a 14 year old daughter in private school, and will soon be a stepfather to a 16 year old and a 7 year old in public school. I don't want to send them into a germ incubator any more than you do. Philosophically, though, I think that while she is dead wrong, the Jenny McCarthy's of the world serve a purpose, that being to a) keep the rest of the world honest and on their toes, and b) to float ideas out there that then have to withstand the crucible of hard science. It is sort of ironic, but I look at that "idea" process the same way as I look at the immunization process. We introduce "bad things" so that the body can bolster it's defenses in a controlled environment so that when presented with that risk in a real situation, it can respond. Jenny's ideas are the "bad things" and we as society have to keep our intellectual defenses sharp.
I guess a couple of work around scenarios on this matter should be 1) Insurance companies should have the right to deny coverage for people who could otherwise get vaccinated. So if you refuse to have your child immunized for any other reason than a bonafide health condition that prevents it, then they have the right to not cover the child with insurance; and 2) allow a public school to require that parents keep their children out of school in the event of an outbreak of a contagious disease for which they refused vaccination, and not allow the children back into school until the threat has been deemed to have ended by public health authorities. This way, the parents must weigh their perceived risk of vaccinating their child against the risk of their child missing a significant amount of school days, and potentially being held back again and again.
I am 1000% in favor of all of those things. I would add to that list: 1) if you DO get a bonafide health exemption, there should be a notice provision for the rest of the school. We protect the individual who has allergies by a notice system, why not the reverse. 2) If applicable, I would advocate additional pre-screening of those that have not received the vaccinations. I am not a doctor, and don't even play one on TV, but if there is any pre-screening available for the major diseases that are otherwise covered by vaccinations (mumps, measles, rubella, small pox) they should be mandatory for those that opt out (and paid for by those that opt out).
Topic: The Measles Thread (Read 9189 times)
