the decsion to vaccinate or not should only have natural consequences. - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 10:55 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)

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!

fruitfulmomma and BeckyBird like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#2 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 11:18 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,296
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
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. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#3 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 11:25 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
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.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#4 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 11:47 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,106
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
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


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#5 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 11:50 AM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

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.

ma2two is offline  
#6 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 12:31 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,296
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
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. 

chickabiddy and BlueMoonBean like this.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#7 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 01:33 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

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.

serenbat and kathymuggle like this.
ma2two is offline  
#8 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 02:00 PM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)

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?

serenbat likes this.
OrmEmbar is online now  
#9 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 02:04 PM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)

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,


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#10 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 02:22 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,106
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
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.


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#11 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 02:23 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,296
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
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


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#12 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 02:31 PM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
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.

serenbat and BeckyBird like this.
OrmEmbar is online now  
#13 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 04:14 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,296
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
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. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#14 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 05:50 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,106
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
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 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#15 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 07:00 PM
 
fisherfamily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 363
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

fisherfamily is offline  
#16 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 08:53 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
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.
Taximom5 is offline  
#17 of 106 Old 02-11-2014, 09:11 PM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
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?

 
BeckyBird likes this.
OrmEmbar is online now  
#18 of 106 Old 02-12-2014, 05:38 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)

: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.

Taximom5 is offline  
#19 of 106 Old 02-12-2014, 06:00 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
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?


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#20 of 106 Old 02-12-2014, 07:54 AM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

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.

rachelsmama and BeckyBird like this.
ma2two is offline  
#21 of 106 Old 02-12-2014, 08:30 AM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post
 

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.

Driving is a privilege, not a right, so no, I don't think it's a valid comparison to public education.

rachelsmama is offline  
#22 of 106 Old 02-12-2014, 09:43 AM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post
 

Driving is a privilege, not a right, so no, I don't think it's a valid comparison to public education.

 

How about privately run daycares and private medical practices?  Those are -- well, I'm not sure they are privileges exactly, but they are certainly not constitutionally protected rights.


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#23 of 106 Old 02-12-2014, 10:09 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,106
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

 

How about privately run daycares and private medical practices?  Those are -- well, I'm not sure they are privileges exactly, but they are certainly not constitutionally protected rights.

when discrimination happens in "private" sectors, states are pushing these institutions for many reasons and taking them to court

 

if a daycare chose to discriminate I would assume it would be challenged, they do have to follow state guide lines, each state being different - many simply are not really private and exist on non-private property, receive some funding based on clients, etc

 

look at Philadelphia and the Boy Scouts (a private club/institution), many private daycare, medical practices except state aid for clients, etc - with a medical practices an insurance company could challenge them for discriminating against a paying patient if they take that insurance- why not? - they would have to be solely private and not affiliated with a hospitable either (since most do get some state/federal aid) - I certainly see someone would have grounds to at least challenge a facility if they chose to discriminate

 

often you don't even need to sue, in the case of a Dr that choose to discriminate if they are affiliated with a hospitable (who really would want a ped that isn't?) you might go after that hospitable and cause enough sink that they may suspend their privileges or cause the Dr to change their discrimination policy - I suspect that if more want to discriminate they will face scrutiny and that maybe a law suite that brings this to a head

 

the ALCU has stood beside nurses I see no reason they would not stand behind a parent to challenge this and I don't expect it will be too much longer to we see this happening

BeckyBird likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#24 of 106 Old 02-12-2014, 10:23 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The issue is no human on earth is 'completely vaccinated'. Not one. I think there is a fundamental right to exist as you were born, it is very dangerous to start saying you need Pharm products to legally exist.

What we are talking about is vaccinated up to date on your country's current schedule. And very few adults would even qualify as that.
dinahx is offline  
#25 of 106 Old 02-12-2014, 10:36 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,296
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

The issue is no human on earth is 'completely vaccinated'. Not one. I think there is a fundamental right to exist as you were born, it is very dangerous to start saying you need Pharm products to legally exist.

What we are talking about is vaccinated up to date on your country's current schedule. And very few adults would even qualify as that.

 

What?  Who is saying you have to take pharmaceutical products to exist? 

 

I've given at least two examples where people can be told that they have to take X medication or suffer Y consequence.  It is not considered a violation of their rights. 

 

Like I said, there is no legal right to make whatever choice you want without consequence.  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#26 of 106 Old 02-12-2014, 10:48 AM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

What?  Who is saying you have to take pharmaceutical products to exist? 

 

My guess is that she meant "exist," as in "exist normally in society." That would include going to school or working if one chooses to do so.

ma2two is offline  
#27 of 106 Old 02-12-2014, 10:55 AM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

What?  Who is saying you have to take pharmaceutical products to exist? 

 

I've given at least two examples where people can be told that they have to take X medication or suffer Y consequence.  It is not considered a violation of their rights. 

 

Like I said, there is no legal right to make whatever choice you want without consequence.  


Except that in the first example you gave (epilepsy and driving), driving is a privilege.  The default is that a person doesn't have a license, they have to earn the privilege.  The second example (tuberculosis and medications) is a bit more of an ethical dilemma, but is quite different than vax -vs- unvaxed since it's a case of somebody having an illness that can be spread, not a healthy person who poses no immediate risk choosing not to take a prophylactic medication which may actually make them a greater risk in the short-term (shedding), and whose long-term effects are completely speculative (the person might never come in contact with any of the diseases).

 

And while I understand your objection to the word "exist" I agree with the spirit of dinahx's statement: making it necessary for everybody to be medicated in order to have rights is a dangerous direction for society to take.

rachelsmama is offline  
#28 of 106 Old 02-12-2014, 11:19 AM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)

But what is a "right"?  I don't think seeing a particular doctor or going to a particular daycare *is* a right and I think it *is* a natural consequence if certain people disapprove of a choice strongly enough to cut ties.


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#29 of 106 Old 02-12-2014, 11:26 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post
 
 

And while I understand your objection to the word "exist" I agree with the spirit of dinahx's statement: making it necessary for everybody to be medicated in order to have rights is a dangerous direction for society to take.

This. Touches of Brave New World.

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#30 of 106 Old 02-12-2014, 11:37 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off