Funny thing about smoking. We don’t allow cigarettes to be sold to children, who aren’t capable of making decisions about future harm. Adults can smoke - but increasingly they cannot do it where they can injure other people through second hand smoke. So your example doesn’t work very well.
Unless you read the whole post.
How does what you are saying apply to obesity?
Wait, are you saying adults should be able to decline vaccines for themselves, but not for their children?
I can see some logic to that, though I still don’t agree completely.
The same argument can be made for seat-belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, the ACA and Social Security. Do you believe the government should stay out of all personal-responsibility issues even if in the aggregate it affects society?
That’s exactly how it works.
You did, of course, get the flu shots while you worked in the hospital. (In the NICU, as you state elsewhere.)
Please say yes.
The Free Exercise Claues of the 1st Amendment is likely not an impediment to laws mandating vaccinations thanks to J. Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
This is an interesting point I think most people in this thread have been remiss in failing to address it.
If, as you claim, the virus can only be spread to “other people not vaccinated” then it can be argued: A.) The unvaccinated person assumed the risk of being infected and therefore cannot sue or prevail B.) The cause for being infected was failure to vaccinate and therefore, they cannot sue or prevail. Although, I am not sure your statement is consistent with how vaccines and vaccinations work.
The point was addressed - it’s false. Vaccines are not 100% effective. They’re good, but not perfect. Also, some people have immune disorders or allergic reactions and legitimately cannot be vaccinated. Those people, plus the random few percent in which the vaccine didn’t work, are at risk despite taking all medically available precautions.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! As I’ve posted throughout this thread, I am PRO-VACCINATION.
I believe in vaccination, I get vaccinated, and if I was responsible for children they would be vaccinated.
I personally have received more vaccinations than most folks. Let me lay out an outline:
Dad was in the Navy, I was born in a Navy hospital and got all routine childhood vaccinations.
When I was 4, dad got sent overseas- so we all got overseas vaccinations.
Came back a year later, more vaccines so I could go to school.
Then as a young adult, I enlisted in the Army.
More vaccines. Then the sent me overseas. Yet more vaccines.
After I was out of the army, I got a tetanus vaccination. (twice in my life, I skipped one)
Some time later I was employed by the hospital- guess what? More shots.
One of routine immunizations showed a low response, so I got a booster. (Might have been rubella, I forget)
And then, yes, every year a flu shot. Every year, I swear.
the one year I missed the flu buggy, I went down to the pharmacy and got a vaccine.
I’m pro-vaccination. I’m anti-government-involvement-in-my-health-decisions.
because a small fraction of those vaccinated might get a disease does not make it false. It makes it highly unlikely. And of those people who get infected the likelihood of death is also unlikely with most of the vaccinated diseases.
But it’s interesting that you mention those who had a reaction to a vaccine (I being one of them). You know how we find out? By getting vaccinated.
It would be nice if kids could be tested for reactions to vaccines.
It would be nice indeed. If anybody ever figures a way, it’s Nobel time.
Note that reactions vary- some people experience discomfort, others coma. No way to know in advance.
I’m not sure ‘invasive and risky procedure’ is an accurate description of vaccinations. As far as ‘government mandating vaccinations’, what do you mean, exactly? Government agents storming peoples homes, physically restraining them in order to vaccinate against their will. No, I don’t think anyone is advocating for that. But government enforced quarantining of infected persons/households was pretty commonplace in the pre-vax era and I believe still legal in cases of active TB, including compulsory treatment.
Now, requiring vaccinations as a condition of entering public school or day care facilities or employment in healthcare settings - I’m not sure that is quite the same thing as a ‘government mandate’ as there is still a choice to not attend public schools, day care or seek employment in healthcare facilities. (Exemptions allowed upon proof of medical condition or legitimate religious objection. However, personally I believe healthcare workers should have no exemptions - outside of serious extenuating circumstances)
I too work(ed) in hospitals and clinics and as part of my clinical training. I currently work in clinical research, where the majority of my work involves formulating ‘best practices’ and clinical guidelines. Much of the type of work I do is reviewed to inform policy in hospitals/clinics, eligibility for reimbursement, as well as working closely supervised by an Institutional Review Board (independent ethics boards who oversee research on human subjects). Body integrity/autonomy is a big, big deal to me (just read the force-feeding thread) - not only because of my work, where patient autonomy and informed consent are paramount, but also because body integrity is something I fervently regard as fundamental to human dignity. However, even I realize it is not always absolute, particularly when it puts others at risk of harm.
A competent adult refusing immunization is not that big of an issue (unless they work in a school, healthcare facility, etc), but parents refusing to immunize their children is a whole other issue. Parents are responsible for providing for the welfare of their children, this generally includes food, shelter, clothing, education and seeking appropriate medical treatment. Now parents generally have the right to refuse medical treatment for their minor children, but this is not at all as broad as you are characterising. There’s a world of difference between refusing to put your child through allergy testing/allergy shots and refusing treatment for a broken arm, pneumonia, meningitis, etc. If a parent doesn’t seek medical treatment for their child, they can be charged with neglect (and this happens actually quite frequently - ask any healthcare provider working in an ER). Parents, as competent adults, have the right to martyr themselves for their beliefs, but this does not automatically extend to their children. Indeed, in many cases it does not.
Healthcare providers are ethically and legally bound to see to the best interest of their patients. When parents wishes conflict with what medical providers consider in the best of interest of the child then typically the courts get involved by appointing a guardian ad litem or other judicial remedy. (Again not necessarily all that rare, particularly in cases where western and eastern cultures clash in their views on healing and medicine. The book, The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down is a good example. Or other cases where parents have been erroneously charged with neglect or abuse for coining or cupping their children.) In cases where there is not time to seek a court order and medical providers have consulted with other providers and/or medical ethics committee - then they can go ahead and perform a medical procedure on a child against the parents consent.
You can read more here:
ETHICS IN MEDICINE: Parental Decision Making
Now, refusing cancer treatment for a minor child is the only case I am aware (off the top of my head) where court precedent typically sides with parents quite broadly.
In the case of vaccinations, I’m torn, because one of the most vulnerable populations when it comes to communicable disease is infants and young children. And some parents beliefs may not be all that informed (particularly when it comes to vaccination), and frequently rooted in unfounded superstition. I think exemptions should be seriously limited when it comes to non-medical reasons for opting out their children.
Perhaps, the more cogent question is should parents be held responsible if they refuse to vaccinate their child and the child contracts a vax-preventable illness and is harmed? What about if their unvaccinated child comes into contact with other vulnerable populations (infants, children, elders, or other immunocompromised people) and causes harm?
Infants, young children, elders and other immunocompromised people are at risk by disease exposure -* in addition to those who may be individually unaffected by vaccination.* I also don’t think ‘likelihood of death’ should be the only measure of harm - becoming ill, disabled or disfigured (as well as loss income, productivity, etc) is also a considerable harm.
There is significant due diligence involved when it comes to determining risk of adverse reactions. It’s not exactly some kind of ‘wait and see’ game. Generally a day or two of flu-like symptoms is not considered all that adverse. Medical providers should heavily screen for potential allergic reactions and possible interactions with patients’ medical history, comorbidities or medications.
I had a reaction to the flu shot once (I’m allergic to eggs). My fingers and hands swelled up for day. I don’t generally consider this to be deterrent. In someone else with greater sensitivity it could be, so it should be discussed with an informed medical provider. An adverse reaction that results in considerable harm, greater than contracting the disease is a better metric to go by.
Honestly? I think refusing to get your child vaccinated should be considered neglect. We prosecute parents who refuse medical treatment for their children all the time – in my opinion, this isn’t all that much different.
aNewLeaf – if vaccines are manditory, then there won’t BE anyone to spread these diseases. That’s the point. As it is, they’re spreading them to people too young to be vaccinated, or with serious health conditions where vaccination IS a danger.
To put it another way, how the fuck do you think smallpox was eradicated? It WAS manditory, in many places.
(BTW, polio has NOT been eradicated. There are plenty of people in the third world who suffer from it – I went to college with a guy from Rwanda who had it as a child. He was the same age as I am.)
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. As soon as you start doing something that seriously endangers my rights, that’s where your rights end. In this case, you’d be endangering my LIFE. There are precedences, too. (See Typhoid Mary)
My grandmother had two brothers who died as children – one from whooping cough when he was 3, and another who developed tetanus after stepping on a rusty nail when he was 7. At the time, there were no vaccines for either. Which choice do you think my great-grandmother would’ve made, if she’d had the chance?
(And even chicken pox can be serious. In fact, the older you are when you get it, the worse it can be. Not to mention that there’s a 1 in 3 chance of getting shingles when you’re older, if you had chicken pox. My dad had shingles last summer. They gave him narcotics for the pain.)
I am utterly astonished at the amount of dangerous misinformation in this thread. We have someone claiming to have worked in a hospital referring continually to vaccines being “invasive and risky” which is asinine.
We have people questioning whether it’s even possible to trace an outbreak of disease back to an unvaccinated person, which was answered in the article link in the OP (the answer is yes). We have people repeatedly saying only others who choose to be unvaccinated can be hurt by these diseases, which is completely false. Obviously many people commenting haven’t bothered to do even the most basic research. This thread is such a disappointing example of the elevation of stupidity.
Everyone is not “entitled to their opinion”. You are entitled to an informed opinion. This should be a serious discussion about public health policy, but no one can have that discussion because of the moronic interruptions by the willfully ignorant. If this is how it goes on the smartest board on the internet, I am terrified for the future of our species, seriously.
I’d go a step further and sue any educational facility that would allow any unvaccinated kids for ANY reason other than medical.
Religions putting people at risk is EXACTLY where we need to step in and let the nut jobs know that we don’t give a crap about their mythology when it comes to threatening public safety.
I don’t see anything in your post that changes anything. Obesity does not hurt anyone but the person him or herself. I said that smoking is okay as long as it hurts no one else - which it did before it got banned from offices and restaurants and the like.
Insurance companies might want to charge more for people putting themselves at risk, but that is a pure business decision.
As for adults getting vaccinated, it depends on the probability of spreading the disease. Many places require medical workers to get flu shots because they can expose high risk patients to the flu. I’d probably want anyone around little kids, especially those too young to get vaccinated, to be protected.
I trust you’re read about herd immunity? If everyone but that small subset having religious objections got vaccinated, there would probably still be general immunity. But the anti-vax movement is causing the number of unvaccinated people to build to a dangerous level.
Yes, you have been pretty clear about doing the right thing.
EverwonderWhy touched on it, but I’ll ask it briefly - do you support a government requirement that all healthcare workers get vaccinated?
Alas yes.