[mike777]

[quote name='helene_t' date='Jul 1 2007, 03:26 AM'] [quote name='Hannie' date='Jun 30 2007, 11:25 PM'] I'd be interested in what people think about this question:


[quote name='Mike777]My bet is  that public safety always trumps individual liberty. Could this lead to tyranny' date=' sure, but I cannot think of an example when the public safety has been at risk, real risk, and when individual liberty won out.[/QUOTE']Funny, I can think of many examples. Think of sexually transmitted diseases. Certain individuals have been known to infect dozens of other people. Even if the source knew he/she was infected. Few are arguing that such persons should be kept responsible, let alone subject to pro-active measures. [/quote]
Your example seems very wierd.

I assume for years and years that this example leads to murder or attempted murder charges or close......

[pbleighton]

Quote

Your example seems very wierd.

I assume for years and years that this example leads to murder or attempted murder charges or close......

Your assumption is incorrect.

Alos, consider the issue of individual gun ownership. Clearly a case of invidual liberty trumping public safety, whatever you think of it.

Peter

[hrothgar]

Hannie, on Jul 1 2007, 12:44 AM, said:

So you would argue that the government may decide to force everybody to vaccinate their children if they deem the risk high enough?

Of course you can't expect every single person to agree on this risk.

If anyone is seriously interested in the history of mandatory vaccination laws in the United States, I strongly recommend the following article published by the Congressional Research Service:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS21414.pdf

Here's a couple key data points:

1. In the United States, issues like vaccination are typically handled at the state level rather than federal statute

2. Many states have passed mandatory vaccination laws. However, these laws typically have multiple exceptions. Religious exceptions are amongst the most typical.

3. In general, the there is no criminal penalty for refusing a vaccine. However, school attendance is typically tied to vaccination status.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with requiring vaccination. Then again, I'm one of those evil collectivists.

For what its worth, I think that there is an interesting analogy to requirements that students attend school until the age of 16 - 18 (specific requirements vary by state)

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Jul 1 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

Personally, I see nothing wrong with requiring vaccination.  Then again, I'm one of those evil collectivists.

It surprises me that you consider yourself a collectivist. I thought a collectivist was someone who wants to collectivize decision processes for the sake of it, i.e. everybody should have the same sexual preferences, use the same hand for writing and celebrate the same holidays. Someone who doesn't care about the welfare of individuals as long as group cohesion is intact. Or someone who doesn't respect individual lifestyle choices because the politicians are better at deciding what is good for individuals.

Merely restricting individuals from exposing other individuals to risks of a certain magnitude sounds more like plain law enforcement to me. Now if you wanted to force adults to protect themselves against non-contagious diseases such as tetanus, I would call it a collectivist attitude.

Quote

2. Many states have passed mandatory vaccination laws. However, these laws typically have multiple exceptions. Religious exceptions are amongst the most typical.

This is disgusting. If I want to commit crime I can just invent a religion according to which that criminal act is my duty to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. One can argue about this particular case (how necessary are vaccinations, how risky are they). I have no qualified opinion about this, I suspect it depends on the vaccine and on the local health situation. But denying one's children a vaccine either is or is not a crime, no matter what religion I claim to believe in.

[Al_U_Card]

Is it really the greater good when the actual beneficiaries are corporations?

You get sick and then you get better. Hygiene and nutrition (until the advent of high fructose corn syrup etc.) give us better immune systems if we can resist the temptation to weaken ourselves unnecessarily.

Pumping our bodies full of strange pharmaceuticals (and no insightful or mind expanding properties either) is not the way to better health, collectively or otherwise.

[barmar]

Al_U_Card, on Jul 1 2007, 07:43 AM, said:

Is it really the greater good when the actual beneficiaries are corporations?

The implicit assumption in the question was that vaccines actually work to reduce illness.

Are you really suggesting that polio and smallpox were wiped out in developed nations by improved hygiene and nutrition, not vaccines?

BTW, I think you'd have found a kindred spirit in my father. He was a former chiropractor (by the time I was born he'd joined the family business, but he still treated family members), and strongly anti-vaccine and anti-medicine. He thought mass vaccinations were a drug company conspiracy.

[Al_U_Card]

You know what cipro is? Aside from the perfect example, it is a fluorinated anti-biotic. It is used to treat resistant strains of bacteria as well as for most post-op secondary infections. It is also prophylactic for anthrax.

In 5% of use, the recipient suffers immediate acute side-effects and application must be discontinued.

In 10% of use, the recipient has no immediate adverse reaction but suffers long term side effects.....fibromyalgia and gulf-war syndrome.

Straight from the CDC.

Sometimes the cure IS worse than the disease. If we know about the risks we can decide for ourselves. If we do not know, we must ask why and who is profiting from the subterfuge. (In this case, Bayer.)

[h2osmom]

This is a complicated issue; clearly smallpox was eradicated through the use of vaccines. Also, there are side effects to vaccines, and it's possible that we don't know all those side effects. On the other hand, there will always be some people who cannot be immunized, because of chronic illnesses or poor immune systems. They need the community not to carry these diseases to protect them. But in the US, we emphasize individual rights over rights of the group. People can refuse immunizations for themselves and their children. Schools can restrict attendance to immunized children, but there are exceptions made for religious and personal beliefs against immunization. The schools don't volunteer that information, but if a parent is able to say that they refuse immunizations, the school will have them sign some forms and they will be able to attend public schools. This isn't the same in all countries. And in the US, children taken into foster care, for instance, will have their immunizations brought up to date, even at the objection of their parents. There are some parents who believe thatimmunizations are necessary and beneficial for the group, but count on the fact that most are immunized as a reason not to immunize their own children. Some diseases, with immunizations available, are on the rise, especially in cities, because of immigration and lack of immunization. It's not just a simple issue. Also, every year or so, there is another recommended vaccination.