Hey Texas girls! Don't want/need vaccinated against STDs? Too bad...

[Andail]

This debate is moving in circles so much I get dizzy from reading it. Please choose your argument and stick to it.

Mandatory vaccination is wrong because huge corporations, kneedeep in corruption, benefit from it in shady fashion.
This is a pertinent argument, but it should be aimed at society at large, at the system which allows for such back-scratching practices. Everything you consume, medicines and hamburgers alike, fall under this category.
Mandatory vaccination is wrong because it violates the citizen's right to make their own decisions etc
There are numerous thing that people wouldn't do if it wasn't mandatory. It's naive to think that if everything was optional, people would always do what's best for them and their fellow humans. People are generally uneducated, uniformed and most of all lazy.
Mandatory vaccination (in this particular case) is wrong because it encourages people to have sex more casually.
This is how conservative islamists advocate the wearing of the Burqa.
The religious belief that sex is sinful leads religious fanatics to regard STD's as a fair punishment from God himself. If you break the connection sex-STD's, you interfere with how God carry out justice.

If God didn't want us to have sex all the time, he shouldn't have made it feel so damn good.

[Helm]

Mandatory vaccination is wrong because it violates the citizen's right to make their own decisions etc
There are numerous thing that people wouldn't do if it wasn't mandatory. It's naive to think that if everything was optional, people would always do what's best for them and their fellow humans. People are generally uneducated, uniformed and most of all lazy.

There are two things to be said about this: If humanity is predisposed towards stupidity, then who are you - or the goverment - to try to salvage them from their own predisposition? Do we really need a goverment to hold our hand when it comes to fundamental personal-rights issues like what you inject in your bloodstream? If someone wants to destroy themselves through negligence, so be it.

The goverment should try to educate and inform, not force the wellbeing of people.

Second issue is: if it is as you say and humans are stupid and make the wrong choices, then how does it [the mandatory supplying of shots] help to shift this paradigm from such, to humans being responsible? When was pro-activity, saneness and intelligence ever encouraged by other people making your choices for you?

The goverment should strive to make one's options known to them and then trust humanity to make a honest and informed judgement call. If they do not believe this is possible, they're not really a democratic goverment at all and should not be trusted not with our wellbeing to begin with.

[Andail]

You're ignoring the fact that most of the decisions that your government is making for you, also protects your society from you.
It's unlawful to drive a car under the influence of alcohol not only because you might kill yourself, but also because you might kill other people too.
You have to attend school up to a certain level, because it's mandatory that you have a basic insight in how different aspects of society work in order for you to vote, as a citizen in a democratic system. To rephrase this with a twist; you're not free to be as ignorant as you want.
If you are a potential carrier of a contagious disease, you may have to undergo vaccination to prevent a spreading of said disease.

PS:
Now don't get me wrong here, I'm generally strongly opposed to governmental big-brothering. I'm against constant camera-surveillance, I'm against that the authorities can eves-drop on any individual cintizen, record their phonecalls, emails etc (wherever they can) and patriot acts.
But vaccination doesn't sort under this practice. It's not like they insert a beacon or a bug or anything.

[Snarky]

You keep making these utilitarian ethics statements in this thread... I don't know how seriously I should take them. Please tell me.

If you wish to respond, you may take them in perfect seriousness. Almost anything you can do, and certainly all policy decisions, has pros and cons. When it comes to medicine, there's no such things as a perfectly safe procedure. If you give someone an antibiotic to clear up their infection (syphilis, leprosy, strep throat, take your pick), they may die from an allergic reaction. But antibiotics save orders of magnitude more people than it kills. It's all a numbers game, statistics.

(That doesn't mean we should be insensitive to, or not try to minimize, the negatives, of course.)

[Helm]

Okay, so you're serious.

If a drug possibly kills people, it should be administered to them if and only they are made aware of all possible side-effects and they still agree to take the medicine. If they're obligated to take a medicine that might do them harm, don't you see something wrong with that?

[SSH]

Helm, early smallpox vaccinations had as high as 2% mortality rates and yet were made mandatory in many countries. Was this a bad thing?

Most modern vaccine concerns are not about the vaccines themselves but for the possible risk of the mercury-containing preservatives used with them. Some people think they cause autism, but these usually in cases of much smaller children and in any case, the WHO and most major studies disagree: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal

[Helm]

Helm, early smallpox vaccinations had as high as 2% mortality rates and yet were made mandatory in many countries. Was this a bad thing?

I have absolutely no problem saying a resounding YES to that and I'm shocked you do not do the same.

It's unlawful to drive a car under the influence of alcohol not only because you might kill yourself, but also because you might kill other people too.

The case in point is closer to the goverment making you wearing your own seatbelt MANDATORY than it is ruling against driving under the influence.

I would make an exception in vaccination of really fast-spreading and deadly illments, but smallpox ain't it. For example, if we found the cure for AIDS I wouldn't be against third world countries having emergency mandatory shots for everybody, but even if not everybody got them, in a space of time of one or two generations the disease would be killed off anyway due to how many *have* got it as opposed to how many are vaccinated against it.

The best-case scenario is always to give people the reasoning tools to make their own choices for themselves. I don't see what's going on in america with this specific vaccination is doing that. It's in Texas (localized) somebody is profiting from it, some people may be in danger from it, and it's mandatory. It makes no sense.

You have to attend school up to a certain level, because it's mandatory that you have a basic insight in how different aspects of society work in order for you to vote, as a citizen in a democratic system.

You have a few obligations towards the state, and the state has a few obligations towards you. Basic school attendance is one of them. Possibly dying from side-effects of nebulous medicine is not.

[SSH]

The case in point is closer to the goverment making you wearing your own seatbelt MANDATORY than it is ruling against driving under the influence.

And rear passengers without seatbelts have crushed the occupants of the front seats in car accidents. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdhqbqoa5bQ

You're also forgetting that the average American is too stupid to assess the risk/benefit objectively.

[Helm]

If that's how an american goverment feels and bases its governing on, then it's not a democratic goverment and should be removed immediately.

[SSH]

Well, Duh!

[Helm]

It does not befit a grown man in a serious discussion to say 'well, duh' as some sort of reply.

[Raggit]

If that's how an american goverment feels and bases its governing on, then it's not a democratic goverment and should be removed immediately.

Amen.

[nulluser]

-

[biothlebop]

You have a few obligations towards the state, and the state has a few obligations towards you. Basic school attendance is one of them.
Possibly dying from side-effects of nebulous medicine is not.

I see the state as a contract. You give up some of your rights in exchange for safety.
This contract is constantly subject to change to find a suitable balance between freedom and a sense of security, and I don't see why dying from side-effects of a medicine could not be one of these, as many states have terms that could lead to your death, like defending your state in a time of war.

The problem is that ideally, every person should be able to leave, join or create states and contracts according to their wishes, but in practice, existing states coerce individuals and other states, threaten with retaliation etc.

Second issue is: if it is as you say and humans are stupid and make the wrong choices, then how does it [the mandatory supplying of shots]
help to shift this paradigm from such, to humans being responsible?
When was pro-activity, saneness and intelligence ever encouraged by other people making your choices for you?

You have only made the choice to let more talented individuals convince others for you. You are really still making all the choices, but through intermediaries. If you are unhappy with the outcome of your intermediary's actions, you are hopefully given an opportunity from time to time to choose another person or run for this position yourself.

While real experts can only provide numbers and facts, the choices we make upon those facts are individual value judgements. You are still responsible to educate yourself, to know the facts so that your values will have a good ground to base themselves on. You are also responsible to find the best person who not only has similar values as you but can convince others better than you can. The responsibility does not disappear anywhere even when electing someone. If people are lazy, irresponsible and uninformed, it will reflect in how the state and elected officials act, and if you have had the opportunity to vote, you are part responsible for every atrocity and good that has been made in the name of the state.

If that's how an american goverment feels and bases its governing on, then it's not a democratic goverment and should be removed immediately.

Even if you are voting for a person who says that the average American is too stupid to assess the risk/benefit,
you are acting democratically. If an elected government bases it's governing on such opinions and the voters were aware of what they were voting for, I see it as a democratic and representative government.

[SSH]

I would make an exception in vaccination of really fast-spreading and deadly illments, but smallpox ain't it.

Errr... smallpox was responsible for an estimated 300â€"500 million deaths in the 20th century. As recently as 1967, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 15 million people contracted the disease and that two million died in that year.

I had previously read that as "smallpox it ain't", thinking you meant that HPV wasn't as dangerous, but it isn't.

Another thing I found, just reading about it, is that it is described as a "prophylactic vaccine". Perhaps some of the conservatives misunderstood what "prophylactic" really means...

[MrColossal]

Well, a bit of an obscure and weird title there. But anyway, pre-marital sex is wrong according to Christian beliefs. Oui, moi est Christian!!

Did you even read the thread or are you just responding to a thread title? Married people can get HPV too!

[nulluser]

-

[SSH]

You're correct there. Well, even so, people should go for a compulsory STD test anyway.

Which STD? And when? And why?

[Helm]

I see the state as a contract. You give up some of your rights in exchange for safety.
This contract is constantly subject to change to find a suitable balance between freedom and a sense of security, and I don't see why dying from side-effects of a medicine could not be one of these, as many states have terms that could lead to your death, like defending your state in a time of war.

A contract it is, and it's state is not as fluid as you suggest. Check the constitution of the country you're at for a very very lucid explanation of the said trade-off. Military service is a very thoroughly contested issue - speaking from a country where army service is mandatory - and still makes sense when you have a thorough understanding of the social contract you're under in greece. Taking this medicine doesn't even come close.

You have only made the choice to let more talented individuals convince others for you. You are really still making all the choices, but through intermediaries. If you are unhappy with the outcome of your intermediary's actions, you are hopefully given an opportunity from time to time to choose another person or run for this position yourself.

Yes. I see no problem with this reasoning. It does not contest my point. As a general note on how representative democracy works, thanks, I guess?

If people are lazy, irresponsible and uninformed, it will reflect in how the state and elected officials act, and if you have had the opportunity to vote, you are part responsible for every atrocity and good that has been made in the name of the state.

Again yes, agree, so on.

Even if you are voting for a person who says that the average American is too stupid to assess the risk/benefit, you are acting democratically. If an elected government bases it's governing on such opinions and the voters were aware of what they were voting for, I see it as a democratic and representative government.

A democratic party that is so inherently undemcratic as to support such opinions is severing the social contract we spoke of below. Read your constitution again. In mine, it starts with 'power comes FROM the people, for the service of the people'. A political party within the confines of a democratic system my endorse a lot of opinions. But if they come against the country's constitution, it is the duty of that country's countrymen to rise against this goverment and overthrow it, and esthablish a new democratic goverment. A citizen's alligeance is not towards the ruling party and its policy. It is towards his country and constitution. Them, that, and this, is what a political party that forms goverment is supposed to serve.

Edit: SSH sorry I forgot to reply to you when I posted: My bad, I didn't know what smallpox exactly was when I posted before.

[biothlebop]

Yes. I see no problem with this reasoning. It does not contest my point. As a general note on how representative democracy works, thanks, I guess?

Sorry about that, didn't really get your point at first.

A contract it is, and it's state is not as fluid as you suggest. Check the constitution of the country you're at for a very very lucid explanation of the said trade-off. Military service is a very thoroughly contested issue - speaking from a country where army service is mandatory - and still makes sense when you have a thorough understanding of the social contract you're under in greece. Taking this medicine doesn't even come close.

The case in point is closer to the goverment making you wearing your own seatbelt MANDATORY than it is ruling against driving under the influence.

If mandatory/obligatory means "binding in law or conscience", the constitution says something like 'public power is to be enforced according to law' and a drunk driver is punished according to law, isn't driving sober mandatory in the same way as using a seatbelt or ruling against a person in either case?
I see drunk driving and not wearing a safety belt different from beating someone in that the first two cases no one is intentionally harmed (and punishment works as a preventative measure), while a person that hits another is actively breaching that person's freedom and constitutional rights. Do you see laws for mandatory seatbelts, vaccines etc. unconstitutional (eg. limiting a person's freedom when it is done for a preemptive/preventative reason)?

A democratic party that is so inherently undemcratic as to support such opinions is severing the social contract we spoke of below. Read your constitution again. In mine, it starts with 'power comes FROM the people, for the service of the people'. A political party within the confines of a democratic system my endorse a lot of opinions. But if they come against the country's constitution, it is the duty of that country's countrymen to rise against this goverment and overthrow it, and esthablish a new democratic goverment. A citizen's alligeance is not towards the ruling party and its policy. It is towards his country and constitution. Them, that, and this, is what a political party that forms goverment is supposed to serve.

Yes, you are right.