|
Post by markesq on Aug 15, 2018 12:18:56 GMT -5
We have all kinds of laws/rules etc. that limit our absolute autonomy when it impacts others. E.g ., if someone is constantly blasting loud music, there are typically noise regulations I can invoke. Sure, it's their stereo and their apartment, but their right to blast music stops where my right to a reasonable amount of quiet enjoyment of my apartment begins. You can't just let your garbage pile up and attract vermin. You might not care but the community does. Etc. ETA: The garbage example might be comparable-- even though it is your property and your garbage, you have an obligation to take affirmative action to not let it accumulate. whether you care about the rats, roaches and stink or not, it impacts the neighborhood. I have the same problem with these examples as with Rob's. The music and garbage are both affirmative and harmful actions I am taking, right? I'm throwing stuff out, letting it pile up. To me, that's different from me declining your request (insistence) that I be poked with needles, when I don't wish to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 12:47:14 GMT -5
Requiring you to correctly bag your garbage and put it out by the curb or take it to the dump, is an affirmative action. The easiest thing to do, if you yourself don't care about the vermin and the stink, is to let it collect on your patio.
It's actually a bigger pain in the ass, actually, to bag up your garbage every week than it is to get a single needle jab.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 13:01:56 GMT -5
Well, there's also the "what is it you're asking them to do that impacts their autonomy" thing vs the impact on others. With vaccination, we are talking a prick in the arm that takes 5 seconds, that is overwhelmingly likely to benefit you as well as the community and very unlikely to injure you. If what you were asking was for them, e.g., to go through hours of excruciating pain solely for the benefit of others, that might be another discussion. ETA: Moreover, don't those anti-vaxxers have the option of homeschooling? True but that's the problem, it's a utilitarian argument. So I have to ask, where do you draw the line and, more importantly, what guides you in the line drawing? It's also pretty painless to give blood and immensely useful (life-saving even) so can we require that? It's totally painless to give up organs after death, and clearly life-saving -- should we mandate that? My problem is seeing how and where we draw the line. I think, as with most things in life, to some extent there is a continuum and a balancing act -- what are we asking people to do? what is the down side for them? what is the upside for humanity? what is the down side for humanity? On the organ donor thing, I wouldn't mind having an opt-out scenario rather than an opt-in scenario, but that's me -- you'd be completely free to elect a "no way, bury me intact" policy, but if you didn't elect that, doctors could harvest viable organs. Lots of people have no problem in theory with organ donation, but just never get around to making the election. I have to admit I was one of those people until a few years ago, but it wasn't because I was reluctant to donate. On the giving blood, if EVERYONE gave blood, there'd be far too much of it! There actually is a limit to how much the blood banks can use. (On 9/11, a bunch of my colleagues and I went to the nearest hospital to give blood. The line to give went on for blocks. They ended up turning the vast majority of us away because they simply didn't have the need.) And that was after a huge catastrophe. I would argue that there is no overwhelming need for everyone to give blood that overcomes the bodily autonomy thing. With vaccines, the danger to the people who cannot get vaccinated from people who just don't bother getting vaccinated is constant and ever-present. It's invisible, because you cannot tell from looking at someone whether they've been vaccinated and whether they are incubating a disease or carrying it, so it is impossible to avoid the danger. Once they are infected, there's a limit to what you can do for them -- unlike an accident where you can seek a blood or organ donor once catastrophe has it. If you say "pfft, only get vaccinated if you feel like it", the people who cannot get vaccinated, including new tiny babies and people with compromised immune systems, will be forced to lead very isolated lives if they want to avoid those diseases. And that's taking aside the fact that the people who CHOOSE not to get vaccinated, or for their kids not to get vaccinated, are placing a burden on the healthcare system when they or their kids get sick. Some group is going to have a burden here, or else they're going to have a significant risk of getting sick and even dying. Balance the pinprick in the arm vs the people who cannot get vaccinated being forced to isolate themselves and lots of people getting ill and dying, and I think it's clear which side should win that debate. And if you don't want the pinprick, you should be the one who isolates yourself. I also think that the fact that the reasons for not getting vaccinated (assuming you aren't in the very limited group with medical reasons for doing it) are fallacious nonsense, and an argument of "people may die if people shun vaccinations, but hey, I just can't be bothered" isn't something I think society needs to support any more than we support garbage piling-up guy. At some point, the greater good overcomes the individual autonomy thing, but it really is a question of "what are we asking people to do and why? what's at stake?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 13:12:52 GMT -5
Finally, it's also the case that in your OP scenario, this isn't even people making the decision about themselves -- they are making the decision with regard to their children.
True, we do and should allow parents all kinds of leeway to make decisions about their own kids. But we do have limits. E.g., if I'm not mistaken, you can't just reject medical treatment for your kid who has cancer. Taking aside all the other people not vaccinating puts at risk, the non-vaccinated kids are put at unnecessary risk. Putting your kid at risk for all kinds of terrible unnecessary diseases because you bought into some kind of Jenny McCarthy bullshit -- yeah, that's like sending your kid out in winter without a coat because Kanye told you coats cause autism. And I'm pretty sure if you insisted on sending your kid out into the snow without a coat every day the authorities would be down on you for child abuse/neglect.
ETA:
Ditto if you don't put a seatbelt on your kid or have a proper baby seat for them. You can't just "choose" on behalf of your kid not to secure them in the car. You can't "choose" not to educate them. There are limits on your choices when they impact the well-being of your children. That's above and beyond the societal good issue.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Aug 15, 2018 13:25:39 GMT -5
Good points, Cass, thank you, especially about the decisions we (have to!) make for our kids, for their good.
(But I'd still love to get Don's libertarian view of this...!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 13:39:16 GMT -5
Another example -- we require people to buckle up on planes during takeoff and landing or whenever the pilot thinks it's necessary. We don't say "hey, if you want to fly across the cabin, that's your business" because those people flying across cabins will injure not only themselves, but others. So we require that affirmative act -- buckle your seatbelt.
Actually, true for cars, too -- if aren't buckled in, you could cause injuries to others if an accident occurred.
I truly DO think by and large we should let people swing their fist if it doesn't smash someone's face. There's a certain amount of tolerance we should all have for each other's right to swing their fist, and if it doesn't impact others at all, IMO we should by and large shut up and deal. E.g., maybe you don't like same sex marriage, but it's really none of your damn business. But when your choice to do or not do something DOES negatively impact others, I think some consideration needs to be given to whether that impact is acceptable, and whether what we are asking the individual to do or not do to prevent or reduce it is excessive.
I think it's also worth asking whether the impact on others is "oh, gee, that person's behavior offends my delicate sensibilities/religious beliefs!" versus "people could get sick or die." If it's the former, I'm pretty much "pfft." If it's the latter, I think we need to consider stepping in.
And then there's "are we asking for a prick in the arm or a significant sacrifice of some kind."
With vaccines, it's a prick in the arm for an individual vs potential death and disease for many. I think that's a fairly easy one, actually.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Aug 15, 2018 13:47:46 GMT -5
And then there's "are we asking for a prick in the arm or a significant sacrifice of some kind." With vaccines, it's a prick in the arm for an individual vs potential death and disease for many. I think that's a fairly easy one, actually.
Whereas...*clears throat, waits for drum roll...* ... we have a prick in the White House doing immeasurable harm.
Couldn't resist, sorry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 13:51:21 GMT -5
*bans markesq for unauthorized punning*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 14:00:03 GMT -5
I also think one needs to consider any potential foreseeable negative effects that the state stepping in might have to the individual or the community. What might the effect be, and how likely is it?
If it is very small and minor, versus a huge benefit -- well, okay, let's talk. But sometimes stepping in to forbid or mandate behavior has huge unintended negative consequences. E.g., if you outlaw abortion, you're going to have women getting dangerous illegal ones. If you outlaw alcohol and drugs, you'll still have alcohol and drugs, but it will be accompanied by all kinds of illegal dangerous activity and the substances themselves are more likely to be dangerous. Outlaw prostitution, and you end up with very vulnerable prostitutes at the mercy of pimps. That's why I think outlawing those things is simply bad policy (Well, okay, maybe some drugs are just too damn dangerous. But pot? Come on.)
Again, here the consequences are...people get a prick in the arm. And lots of people, including them, including innocent children and people who have no choice about getting vaccinated, don't die unnecessarily from preventable diseases. Perhaps a very teeny tiny percentage of people will have a bad reaction to the vaccine, but I understand that risk is extremely minute compared to the risks from the diseases themselves. (There's also a very remote risk that your seatbelt will trap you and you won't be able to escape an inferno. But the much larger, more likely risk is of you becoming a projectile in an accident, endangering yourself and others.)
ETA:
And finally, worth noting that here some population is going to bear some kind of burden whether the state acts or not. If the state doesn't say "okay, you have to get your kid vaccinated before she attends public school", the people who can't get vaccinated have to isolate themselves or risk disease/death. They'll have to be homeschooled, etc. In this particular instance, I'd rather put the burden on the unscientific anti-vaxxers to either get the prick in the arm or homeschool their kids.
ETA:
Finally, assuming we can agree that there is some worthwhile societal goal to be accomplished, whether it can be accomplished in a way that doesn't trespass on an individual's autonomy. E.g., I think with abortion, it would be more effective to assist women in choosing not to become pregnant in the first place. It would also help if prenatal care and the cost of delivery weren't batshit expensive. (I've seen plenty of info showing that medical care costs far, far more in the U.S. than in other countries. And then we have this bizarre emphasis on insurance rather than care. People shouldn't be risking bankruptcy if they need to go in the hospital. Seriously, it's crazy.) I think it's safe to say that no one loves abortion, and no one would object to seeing fewer women seeking them -- it's a matter of balancing autonomy vs that goal. So, uh, religious right, maybe stop trying to shut down sex ed classes and Planned Parenthood clinics, m'kay?
But with vaccination -- I assume we can all agree that people not dying or being scarred/crippled for life is a worthwhile goal. Is there a better, less intrusive way to accomplish it than requiring kids to get that prick in the arm before attending public school? I await suggestions. I do think perhaps as a society we should try harder to counter the Jenny McCarthy anti-vaccination idiocy. I know some very educated people who fell for it. You really have to shove the evidence under their noses. It would be better if people WANTED to get their kids vaccinated.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Aug 15, 2018 14:18:29 GMT -5
So you would agree with Rob (and me, I guess) that there should be no exemptions granted? You wanna go to a public school, you get vaccinated. If not, you home school, or maybe send your kid to a private school. I'm OK with that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 14:21:39 GMT -5
So you would agree with Rob (and me, I guess) that there should be no exemptions granted? You wanna go to a public school, you get vaccinated. If not, you home school, or maybe send your kid to a private school. I'm OK with that. Yes, absolutely. That's what I would advocate.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 15, 2018 15:12:01 GMT -5
That said, I think maybe your analogy isn't quite right, and here's why: by standing on the track you are taking an active role in putting others in danger. By living my life on my own terms (i.e., by refusing vaccinations), I am not taking an active role in endangering people. Disagree.* And regardless, you're changing the parameters: It's not whether or not you can refuse a vaccination, because you absolutely can. It's whether or not the school system can require vaccinations for students. So...you (general "you") can live life on your own terms by home schooling, I guess. But if you want to utilize the public school system, it's fair for you to follow the perfectly reasonable and justifiable requirements re immunizations. * I disagree because not getting vaccinations increases the risk for other as a matter of course. That's active.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Aug 15, 2018 15:27:11 GMT -5
That said, I think maybe your analogy isn't quite right, and here's why: by standing on the track you are taking an active role in putting others in danger. By living my life on my own terms (i.e., by refusing vaccinations), I am not taking an active role in endangering people. Disagree.* And regardless, you're changing the parameters: It's not whether or not you can refuse a vaccination, because you absolutely can. It's whether or not the school system can require vaccinations for students. So...you (general "you") can live life on your own terms by home schooling, I guess. But if you want to utilize the public school system, it's fair for you to follow the perfectly reasonable and justifiable requirements re immunizations. * I disagree because not getting vaccinations increases the risk for other as a matter of course. That's active. We may have to agree to disagree on the active v. passive. By your logic, not donating a kidney increases the risk of harm to someone, somewhere.
That said, I think that point is somewhat irrelevant because I think you've isolated the central issue -- no one is forcing anything on anybody. It's a simple deal: public school = vaccination. You give and you get, otherwise you're on your own.
I knew you lot help me figure it out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 15:43:23 GMT -5
Disagree.* And regardless, you're changing the parameters: It's not whether or not you can refuse a vaccination, because you absolutely can. It's whether or not the school system can require vaccinations for students. So...you (general "you") can live life on your own terms by home schooling, I guess. But if you want to utilize the public school system, it's fair for you to follow the perfectly reasonable and justifiable requirements re immunizations. * I disagree because not getting vaccinations increases the risk for other as a matter of course. That's active. We may have to agree to disagree on the active v. passive. By your logic, not donating a kidney increases the risk of harm to someone, somewhere.
That said, I think that point is somewhat irrelevant because I think you've isolated the central issue -- no one is forcing anything on anybody. It's a simple deal: public school = vaccination. You give and you get, otherwise you're on your own.
I knew you lot help me figure it out. I agree that a central issue is that no one is forcing anything on anybody. But I don't think the not getting vaccinated thing is comparable to not donating a kidney. For one thing, your failure to donate a kidney, while it may fail to assist a person needing the kidney, has not caused or contributed to causing someone to need a kidney in the first place. For another, if you don't donate a kidney, someone else might. Whereas if you fail to get vaccinated, your inaction might actually cause another person to get ill. And that's true even if others do get vaccinated. I think that's a very important distinction. This is more like mandating that doctors or food preparers wash their hands before doing their job, versus, say, mandating that all bystanders are obligated to execute the Heimlich maneuver when someone chokes in a restaurant. If the doctor does not wash her hands, the patient could get sepsis as a direct result of her failure. If the food preparer does not wash his hands, the diner might contract some disease as a direct result. But for that failure, it would not have happened. Whereas the bystander in the restaurant may have failed to save the choking person. But he did not cause anyone to choke in the first instance. (Also, though I think it's a secondary point, another bystander stepping in would serve the purpose. You don't need everyone stepping in--you just need one who knows what he's doing. Whereas another person getting vaccinated would not undo the bad effects of the people who decided not to get vaccinated. You need mass participation by an overwhelming majority to have herd immunity. You don't need the whole country to donate kidneys, either. It would be great to encourage more people to be organ donors, but a percentage, even a substantial percentage, of people opting out really would be fine. Not fine when it comes to vaccinations.)
|
|
|
Post by gaild on Aug 15, 2018 18:07:19 GMT -5
Well, we draw the line at making it okay for someone who is intoxicated to drive a car or fly a plane because this could lead to multiple deaths and injuries. We draw the line at legalizing dangerous drugs that can lead to chronic and debilitating addiction because this could lead to the death of the addict and anyone else who gets in his/her drug-crazed path. We allow people to have guns but draw the line when those guns are used to cause multiple deaths. (Okay, that's after the fact. But you get my drift here.) Why should we not draw the line at allowing the possibility of dangerous microbes to proliferate in schools (and other community areas) where they can also cause multiple deaths?
Damn. I didn't notice there was a page 2 of this thread. Kindly ignore the above.
Thanks.
|
|