or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › the decsion to vaccinate or not should only have natural consequences.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

the decsion to vaccinate or not should only have natural consequences.

post #1 of 106
Thread Starter 

People are infighting on the terminology thread (shocking, I know) so rather than ruin a thread where many have agreed to be careful with labels, I thought I would start another post.

 

Position statement:

 

The choice to vaccinate or not comes with natural consequences.  The non-vaxxed may have slightly higher disease risk, and the vaccinated take on vaccine risks. Artificial consequences should not be imposed by entities with power as this could limit one's ability to choose freely and make an informed medical choice.  

 

And…go!

post #2 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

 

Position statement:

 

The choice to vaccinate or not comes with natural consequences.  The non-vaxxed may have slightly higher disease risk, and the vaccinated take on vaccine risks. Artificial consequences should not be imposed by entities with power as this could limit one's ability to choose freely and make an informed medical choice.  

 

And…go!

 

Interesting.  I wonder if you think this logic should also apply to freedom of speech.  A person absolutely has the right to go on a homophobic or racial rant on their facebook page/twitter/whatever but employers also have the right to fire them for it.   A recent example is this one http://abcnews.go.com/International/justine-sacco-fired-tweet-aids-africa-issues-apology/story?id=21301833 where a woman was fired for an extremely insensitive tweet about getting AIDS in Africa. 

 

Employers can and do fire people for pictures they post or things they say on facebook or twitter.  

 

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from all consequences of that speech.  Those two things are completely separate. 

post #3 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Interesting.  I wonder if you think this logic should also apply to freedom of speech.  A person absolutely has the right to go on a homophobic or racial rant on their facebook page/twitter/whatever but employers also have the right to fire them for it.

 

  A recent example is this one http://abcnews.go.com/International/justine-sacco-fired-tweet-aids-africa-issues-apology/story?id=21301833 where a woman was fired for an extremely insensitive tweet about getting AIDS in Africa. 

 

I think it is apples to oranges.

post #4 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

I think it is apples to oranges.

:yeah or a nice a try at going off-topic

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Interesting.  I wonder if you think this logic should also apply to freedom of speech.  :dizzy

post #5 of 106

I think the original topic is interesting enough. Let's stick with that, shall we?

 

It is morally wrong for there to be anything but natural consequences. Otherwise, there is coercion, and informed consent is not possible.

post #6 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

I think it is apples to oranges.

 

I disagree. 

 

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right.  The fact that your speech may result in consequences isn't seen as a violation of that right.  

 

In the same vein, the fact that your right to refuse vaccinations may result in a consequence you don't like (losing your job if you are a nurse, for example) shouldn't be seen as a violation of rights either.  You are still able to make the choice to not receive any vaccines.   There is no fundamental right to be free from any and all consequences of choices you make. 

post #7 of 106

One natural consequence of not vaccinating is that if you choose to share that information with others, you might lose friends who vehemently disagree with not vaccinating.

 

Losing one's job or not being able to go to school is as natural as being fined $100,000, for example.

post #8 of 106

Okay, I'm having a hard time equating freedom of expressing oneself through words with freedom to say no to an invasive procedure.

 

I'm trying to figure out if we have anything else that is comparable to this as a society:  "Do this medical procedure or else there will be social, educational, financial and health-access consequences."

 

Fluoridation of drinking water is a mass-medication but it is not a procedure.

 

Do we have any other comparable procedures?

post #9 of 106

I agree that not having access to public schools is not a natural consequence.

 

I do, however, think that it is a natural consequence that people may not wish to associate with you, and those people may include certain private practice doctors or daycare providers,

post #10 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post
 

I think the original topic is interesting enough. Let's stick with that, shall we? YES!

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

I disagree. 

 

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right.  The fact that your speech may result in consequences isn't seen as a violation of that right.  

 

you seem quite bent on going OT on this one, Fundamental right to speech is limited to certain countries and by wanted so badly to makes this tread about it, really is excluding and not one bit welcoming to other members who live outside of the US - for one, the UK has a much different perspective on speech rights

 

 

Kathy said in OP The choice to vaccinate or not comes with natural consequences. NOT a debate on freedom of speech and the connection to vaccines.

post #11 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrmEmbar View Post
 

 

I'm trying to figure out if we have anything else that is comparable to this as a society:  "Do this medical procedure or else there will be social, educational, financial and health-access consequences."

 

 

I can think of a couple examples.  One is epilepsy.  People can refuse to take their epilepsy medication, but the consequence for some people is that they are no longer legally allowed to drive a car.  Not being allowed to drive to work could be financially devastating to a lot of people.  The medication does carry risks and has side effects. 

 

Another example is Tuberculosis.  Courts have ruled that if a person refuses treatment for active TB, they can be involuntarily committed to protect others.   So they can't be forced to take the medication, but the consequence to that decision is being involuntarily committed.  I think it's safe to say that being committed for weeks would probably cause most people to lose their jobs, among other things. 

 

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1993457279NJSuper178_1442

post #12 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

I can think of a couple examples.  One is epilepsy.  People can refuse to take their epilepsy medication, but the consequence for some people is that they are no longer legally allowed to drive a car.  Not being allowed to drive to work could be financially devastating to a lot of people.  The medication does carry risks and has side effects. 

 

Another example is Tuberculosis.  Courts have ruled that if a person refuses treatment for active TB, they can be involuntarily committed to protect others.   So they can't be forced to take the medication, but the consequence to that decision is being involuntarily committed. 

 

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1993457279NJSuper178_1442

 

Hmmm . . . I'll think about those examples more, but my first reaction is:  These are medication choices for a disorder or illness which is present, NOT a prophylactic invasive procedure in the absence of illness.  That's why I brought up fluoride.  It is put in water supplies with an intention of providing prophylactic medicine for the masses. I was really hoping to find an example of a prophylactic procedure.

post #13 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrmEmbar View Post
 

 

Hmmm . . . I'll think about those examples more, but my first reaction is:  These are medication choices for a disorder or illness which is present, NOT a prophylactic invasive procedure in the absence of illness.  That's why I brought up fluoride.  It is put in water supplies with an intention of providing prophylactic medicine for the masses. I was really hoping to find an example of a prophylactic procedure.

 

The distinction is whether or not your choice puts other people at significant enough risk, not whether or not it's prophylactic. 

 

It's why they aren't firing or involuntarily committing (competent) adults who refuse to take their blood pressure medication or inject themselves with insulin.

 

Saying "you have the right to not take your epilepsy medication, but the consequence is you can't drive" is not violating that person's rights.  Even though the situation could be interpreted as "I either have to take the medication, or lose my job,"  the choice is still theirs. 

post #14 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

The distinction is whether or not your choice puts other people at significant enough risk, not whether or not it's prophylactic. 

 

It's why they aren't firing or involuntarily committing (competent) adults who refuse to take their blood pressure medication or inject themselves with insulin.

 

Saying "you have the right to not take your epilepsy medication, but the consequence is you can't drive" is not violating that person's rights.  Even though the situation could be interpreted as "I either have to take the medication, or lose my job,"  the choice is still theirs. 

there area car accidents (and machine, etc) everyday that are caused by people not taking their meds, be it blood pressure med that cause you stoke out, diabetic events - I have known people that have died because of these types of accidents, some that have also caused others to die too

 

just because certain states mandate that a drive who has epilepsy takes meds certainly does not mean that ALL do, even multiple DUI offenders are multiple for the exact same reason! 

 

my state is not going after epilepsy patients and check up on them, no one does a thing unless you are in serious reportable accident and even they are not always drug tested to see if they took their meds - it's really a joke 

post #15 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

there area car accidents (and machine, etc) everyday that are caused by people not taking their meds, be it blood pressure med that cause you stoke out, diabetic events - I have known people that have died because of these types of accidents, some that have also caused others to die too

 

just because certain states mandate that a drive who has epilepsy takes meds certainly does not mean that ALL do, even multiple DUI offenders are multiple for the exact same reason! 

 

my state is not going after epilepsy patients and check up on them, no one does a thing unless you are in serious reportable accident and even they are not always drug tested to see if they took their meds - it's really a joke 


Right.  I know a man who was involved in THREE major car wrecks because of epilepsy, and the police did NOTHING until a friend went to the police and demanded they do something.  Finally, they started an investigation and suspended his license. 

 

The difference between vaccinating and not and these examples is there are no consequences until something bad happens.  There are no consequences for not taking your medication, only for repeated accidents.  There are no consequences for drinking until you are stone drunk, and only for driving that way if you get caught or something bad happens.

 

A non-vaccinating person has done nothing.  And if you are going to say that they could spread disease, you are going to also have to insist that anyone having a live vaccine stay in their home until all shedding has ceased.  But, wait, the last I checked the flu vax, people were still shedding at 21 days...when the study ended.  So, we really don't know who and for how long the flu is being spread by our faithful vaccinator.  And anyone with symptoms of the common cold.  And, all people must be tested for RSV because you can be contagious for up to three weeks after symptoms have ended.  What about a stomach bug.  If you go to work with a slight fever, and then go home and have the stomach flu, and then the immune compromised elderly mother of your co-worker dies from dehydration because of the stomach flu, you ought to be liable for spreading disease and causing the death of someone!  It could have been prevented if you had only stayed home. 

 

Standards, fine, but everyone has to own them.  Vaccinating isn't a free pass in the realm of spreading disease.

post #16 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

The distinction is whether or not your choice puts other people at significant enough risk, not whether or not it's prophylactic. 

It's why they aren't firing or involuntarily committing (competent) adults who refuse to take their blood pressure medication or inject themselves with insulin.

Saying "you have the right to not take your epilepsy medication, but the consequence is you can't drive" is not violating that person's rights.  Even though the situation could be interpreted as "I either have to take the medication, or lose my job,"  the choice is still theirs. 

But the way you phrase this is a bit misleading.

The people who are at risk for complications from typically-mild-diseases-for-which-there-happen-to-be-available-vaccines are also at risk for complications from common viruses, such as colds. But nobody is calling for people with colds to stay home from work, school, or the grocery store. There aren't even any policies for doctors and nurses with colds to stay home from work.

The idea that healthy people should be required to submit to an invasive procedure that might not work, and that also might cause adverse effects--just to possibly protect a hypothetical small segment of the population? You can't get around the fact that that is totally unethical.

The only reason anyone would even consider this is because of the successful fear-mongering put forth by the pharmaceutical industry; all possible complications of typically mild diseases are heavily publicized and hyped, while complications of vaccines are minimized or not even acknowledged, and claimed vaccine efficacy is greatly exaggerated.
post #17 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

The distinction is whether or not your choice puts other people at significant enough risk, not whether or not it's prophylactic. 

I think you've pointed out the crux of the matter.  This is the point of disagreement - and I believe it's the reason why it's such an emotionally-laden disagreement:  Intelligent and caring parents have access to the same information and have come to different conclusions.  Intelligent and caring doctors have come to different conclusions as well.  

Regardless of whichever conclusions we come to about mass vaccination, there is still an ethical quandary to navigate through when it comes to imposed societal consequences vs natural biological consequences. (Whoa, that was a mouthful!)

For the sake of providing a level playing field upon which we may do some intellectual virtual wrestling . . . Let's say that there is an equal amount of harm ( both for the individual and for the larger community ) no matter what an individual chooses. Vaccinating and not vaccinating causes an equal amount of harm.

Just try that idea on as an exercise.

Now, if there is equal harm, how do we create parameters to guide public policy?

 
post #18 of 106

:yeah

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

The distinction is whether or not your choice puts other people at significant enough risk, not whether or not it's prophylactic. 

 

 

 

Who determines that risk?  The pharmaceutical company and the government people they pay off?  The paid consultants for the pharmaceutical industry who teach in the medical schools?

See, there's where you're running into more ethical fallacies.

 

You're asking--well, really, with the idea of mandated invasive medical procedures, you are demanding--that we accept anything and everything put forth by an industry that has a glaring track record of lying in order to increase profits.  You are asking us to trust the US government--not only is there a history of government coverups in the US, but the pharmaceutical industry is among the most powerful lobbies in that government.

 

So you think we should accept a hypothetical risk, as put forth by a corrupt industry and a corrupt government, and based on that hypothetical risk, agree to an invasive procedure that both industry and government admit has risks of its own?

 

Sorry, I'm not buying it.  More and more of us are not buying it.

 

Preventing unvaccinated kids from attending school  (schools that are actually funded by the taxes their parents pay) is the first step towards segregation.  Additional financial burden is the second step.  Firing health care workers, ostensibly for refusing an invasive procedure that has neither been proven safe nor effective, but really, for disagreeing with the Big Business that is trying to sell the procedure, is the third.  

​We've been down this road before in the US.  We should really know better by now
.


What's next? "Separate-but-equal" schools and pediatricians for the unvaccinated?  How about grocery stores, hospitals, restaurants?    My parents are old enough to remember--and tell us about--separate drinking fountains and toilets for non-whites, and the fact that people actually believed that it was to prevent a white person from getting a "colored" person's germs. Edited to clarify (2/12/14, 2:25 pm):  I include this example from history to point out how very wrong it is to separate/segregate/punish a segment of the population based on fear--particularly when we can show that that fear is driven by greed.

 

Accepting a mandate for an invasive medical procedure based on the skewed logic, half-truths, and fear-mongering of an unscrupulous, fraudulent industry/government alliance is opening the door to all the same unethical principals we fought so hard to eradicate.   We've just moved away from race as the issue; that seems to be the only difference.  But behind the racism in our past, there have always been reasons that are universal in human society: greed and fear.

Greed and fear are the two things that propel one group of people to demand that another group accept an infringement on personal rights--rights that are guaranteed in the US Constitution.  You can paint it as anything you want, but it's obvious that, for the corrupt officials attempting to mandate medical intervention, greed is a driving force.

And for people who rushed to get "their"H1N1 shot before the supply was used up, even though they have more of a chance of dying in a car accident than dying of flu--yep, fear is the driving force.


Edited by Taximom5 - 2/12/14 at 11:37am
post #19 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

The distinction is whether or not your choice puts other people at significant enough risk, not whether or not it's prophylactic. 

 

Not vaccinating does not put others at significant risk.  The stats on disease prevalence of vaccine available diseases is pretty clear:  most disease do not circulate in any significant way.  There are exceptions, but those vaccines tend to have significant limitations.   

 

You may disagree, and that is fine, and borderline moot.  I think the big question becomes who decides when parties cannot agree and do the powers that be have the right to impose consequences for what they see as the less desired (but still legal) choice.

 

For me, the answer is no.  It flies in the face of informed choice, autonomy  and parental authority.

 

If the government disagrees with me, then they need to apply policy consistently across behaviors - otherwise they are literally targeting and discriminating against a group of people because they do not like their choices.

 

If the crux of the defense is "puts others at significant risk" then you need to respond to this in an evidence driven manner.

 

Who puts others at risk?  How is the risk quantified?  Let's consider schools

 

Who, in a quantifiable way, is more likely to put others at risk?

-those who send their kids to school sick

-those who make questionable lifestyle choice at home - thus making their kids more prone to illness (and thus transmitting illness)

-those who do not vaccinate

 

 

Of the three,  I would definitely put "those who send their kids to school sick" at the top of the list.  Perhaps we should then make it a rule that anyone whose child comes to school sick more than 3 times in one year needs to remove their child from school?  

 

Do we really want to go down that path?

post #20 of 106

I think (I hope) that even people who claim to be terrified of unvaccinated people would still choose 100% of the time go to school or work with them rather than ride in a car driven by a person with unmedicated epilepsy. Can these things even be compared? It seems silly to do so.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › the decsion to vaccinate or not should only have natural consequences.