Philosophical Problems around Vaccination - Page 4

[Deborah]

If nothing else, this thread has generated some really creative vaccine critical arguments

[poppan]

Originally Posted by Qalliope

Actually, that is just what I was getting at with my example. I think most people perceive that it is a random set of coincidences that might make a person vulnerable to having a vaccine reaction. For example if the person in critical condition was there because they'd been hit by a bus or a bullet, they might have been fine to be moved a few weeks later. And they might or might not have been fine if they had been left where they were. But most people would feel that doing something is better than doing nothing. At least in that situation you can identify the person's vulnerabilities before you expose them to the risk. Vaccine reaction is billed as some kind of fluke, regrettable, but extremely rare and entirely unpredictable, as if there is no obvious mechanism by which a reaction could occur and it is somehow more like being struck by lightning. It's a subset of their feeling that they have no control over their own health, which is ultimately what fuels their decision to vaccinate in the first place. While I don't agree with them, I can see why they feel that it is foolish to place everyone in the path of [what they see as] impending doom to avoid someone dying out of [what they see as] sheer bizarre coincidence.

There is something missing for me in this analogy. I get that some people might think this is a no brainer decision and of course it's better to move the people out of the hospital, even if they are fragile, because the other choice is worse. However--isn't it still a CHOICE? To be made by the individual that it most affects? If I'm in the hospital and dying of cancer and I refuse to be moved--isn't that still my choice? It doesn't even matter what my crazy reasoning is.

Now, if the scenario were more like the entire population must be moved as a whole, and it's all or nothing. Everyone on the entire island must go on the boat or the boat won't leave. In that event, is it morally justifiable to force or coerce the people who don't want to leave, to leave.

[Deborah]

I think I understand the analogy. What it highlights is the irrational and emotional piece around disease and vaccination.

The usual narrative runs like this:

Horrible disease sweeps through population leaving devastation behind. Everyone is helpless to do anything except suffer and die or watch their loved ones suffer and die. Finally, a brilliant doctor creates a vaccine and defeats this disease. The vaccine may occasionally cause a bad reaction and injure someone, but the alternative is widespread death and destruction, so the vaccine is worth the occasional injury.

If the story were true and that was what really had happened, then the general attitude would be understandable, although the deaths and injuries from the vaccine would still present a huge moral problem.

But it isn't what really happened. There is no vaccine story where the events actually ran along that line.

I came across an article about the need to start using the polio vaccine in developing countries (this was early 60s) because infant mortality was dropping (which was good) but polio problems usually started rising as infant mortality dropped. I'm going to avoid discussing the connection between rising polio and dropping infant mortality because it isn't relevant to the point I want to make. What struck me was that the doctor writing this article didn't claim that infant mortality was dropping because vaccine programs had been instituted in these countries. Nope. He said it was improved sanitation and a rising standard of living.

Every once in a while the real story slips out.

Sorry, I went way OT with that one!