Originally Posted by teacozy
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.
Edited by Taximom5 - 2/12/14 at 11:37am
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.