Mandatory vaccines are ethical.
Remember smallpox or polio? Great! Me neither!
This is a discussion on Are Mandatory Vaccines Unethical? within the Science and Technology forums, part of the Topics of Interest category; Mandatory vaccines are ethical. Remember smallpox or polio? Great! Me neither!...
Mandatory vaccines are ethical.
Remember smallpox or polio? Great! Me neither!
One point that I also thought was interesting that you brought up was the aspect of civilization. We do live in very dense cities which allow for the spread of disease to increase. We are exposed to much more than if we were not living in such dense areas and I think this is good and bad for our immune system. Even if we could somehow spread everyone out and not live in such dense areas we would still get viruses though.
Anyway, I just wanted to bring up how easy people get upset nowadays too. I have seen anti vaxxers just get destroyed on social media. I mean I guess it has been that way for a long time but I feel like today is getting more and more polarized. I was alive during the Bill Clinton fiasco and I don't remember it being this bad even when Congress was trying to impeach a president. What I mean is that it was everywhere yes but I feel like the dichotomy between then and this last political election is huge. People are just anger and less open-minded.... maybe that's how it always has been but I have more free time and can be more attentive I am not sure.
I apologize I went way off on a tangent!
OKay, sorry for the rants just ideas in my head.
Wait a second, is this another thread for antivaxxers? That bullshit group, that think that it's not forth to endure small sort term pain for long term gains.
I think mandatory vaccines are appropriate if:
[A] The disease is potentially life threatening even to those NOT already ill.
[B] The disease is highly contagious.
[C] The vaccine is highly effective.
All three of those have to be in place for me to consider it reasonable.
For instance the flu vaccine would be wrong to make mandatory because the efficacy is ridiculously inadequate, and the frequency of recommended administration is high. No one wants to be forced to get a questionable shot twice a year for something that most people don't have a big problem with.
(I have never in my life gotten the flu or the shot, or even a cold for that matter)
A mandatory vaccine against the chicken pox would just be stupid considering it doesn't imperil life or limb.
But the most basic vital vaccine set and boosters makes a lot of sense. One thing I really do wish doctors did was separate the vaccines out a bit more. As it is with these 5 in 1's, if someone did have an allergic reaction it is impossible to tell which one caused the issue. People can have allergic side effects from a few vaccines, and if they aren't vital then they shouldn't have to get the same one again in a booster set just to receive the others.
When it comes to the anti-vaxxer crowd, I often think there is a simple solution the medical community seems really resistant to considering.
More studies, performed by unaffiliated agencies, on post-24 hour vaccine side effects. As it is the only reaction studies we have fall within a 24hr window.
Obviously someone has to be a special kind of stupid to believe there's any link to autism after all the debunking that has been done, but there are still some other concerns.
For instance, I'd love to see blood titer based comparison studies of efficacy with vaccines given individually versus 3 or 5 in 1's.
I'd like to see studies of patients recently vaccinated being exposed to other unvaccinated viruses / bacteria with a control group exposed that is not vaccinated at all... and if there's an impact on infection (temporary immune system depression), what is the window of time that the effect lasts for? Should people get vaccinated on a weekend to protect themselves from other infections?
Well, like I said, the medical community seems reluctant to address these sorts of questions. They want the general populace to operate completely on trust, but that isn't a good way to relieve persistent anxieties. If they would take concerns more seriously, I think the anti-vaxxer movement would die off for good.
They absolutely are unethical, and if the state tries to impose mandatory vaccinations on the populace, wise parents who recognize the truth that not all vaccines are beneficial are fully justified in using force to defend their children from the state's sinister agents, even if that force ends up being lethal.
Refusing to vaccinate yourself or your children is an act of pathological individualism. One person doing so doesn't harm anyone, but if there are enough anti-vaxers, infections are able to spread. Vaccinated people are also harmed in a way. They might have to care for the sick, although in a world without infections they might do more satisfying things.
The question would be legit if we were talking only about some sketchy vaccines, that for example in 50% of cases could help and in other 50% they would be harmful or useless.
But as far as I know, antivaxxers are just complete idiots in most cases, just like SJWs and feminists. I don't wanna be offensive, because all those groups had legits reasons to exists, just that over time, when main issues were solved all of them started to create issues for everyone and for dumbest reasons ever. I still remember some idiota, who spilled bleach on male's crotch, when they had their legs spread in public transport and excuse was something about feminism and that such behavior is gross. Meanwhile real reasons why feminism even started, was that females lacked many rights, that males and and they got much smaller salaries. The idea was that all genders are equally worthy, but not equal. Sadly, this simple thing is mostly not understood and that's why they became idiots. Same happened to SJWs and lately to antivaxxers.
Sorry, but I'm not into playing Russian Roulette with my life and there's no way, I can agree that ditching important parts of medicine is a good idea. It's not and it's just silly.
Your question is open ended and there's an option for answer 'unethical', therefore this thread definitely implies that the discussed topic can even be questioned and you most likely want to see two sides discussing, but you must know, that such threads most likely result into flame wars of two sides.
I don't think it is unethical.
Vaccines cures diseases. It is an effective solution.
The 'terrible' stuff you hear when you are vaccinated is a myth. We don't live in the 1980's anymore.
The stuff about that should not be in any ones minds because vaccines cannot have that problem.
The only problem with vaccines are being pricked by needle. But who hasn't been pricked by something before? And it will only give you not-so-serious side effects.
Diseases have 1000 times more negative impact than some side effect of vaccine that can easily and quickly be worn off.
All the stuff you hear about terrible vaccines get it out of your mind and throw it in a dustbin.
Here are myths about vaccinations that people tend to believe.
1. Do not have a vaccination when you're ill
It's a FACT that you should postpone your child's jab if they're ill and have a high temperature (fever).
You may also want to postpone vaccination if your child has had a bad reaction to a previous dose of the vaccine.
This does not mean that they'll never be able to have the vaccine again, but it's a good idea to speak to your GP, practice nurse or health visitor first.
2. Do not have a vaccination if you have an allergy
It's a FACT that your child should not have a vaccine if they have had a confirmed severe allergic reaction (anaphylactic reaction) to a previous dose of the vaccine or an ingredient in it.
3. Do not have a "live" vaccine if you have a weakened immune system
Live vaccines are ones that contain the virus or bacteria they're supposed to protect against, albeit in a weakened form.
It's a FACT that your child should not have live vaccines, such as BCG (tuberculosis vaccination) or MMR, if:
your child isbeing treated with high-dose steroid tablets or injections – if you're not sure, check with a GP
your child is being treated for cancer with chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or has had these treatments within the last 6 months
your child has had an organ transplant and is on immunosuppressant drugs
your child's immune system is lowered – if you're not sure, check with a GP
Here are more myths
- It's a MYTH that you have to avoid or delay your child's vaccination if they have a mild illness without a fever, such as a cough or cold, or if they have an allergy, such as asthma, hay fever or eczema.
- It's a MYTH that you have to avoid or delay your baby's vaccinations if they were premature.
- It's a MYTH that you have to avoid your baby's vaccinations if they have a history of febrile seizures or convulsions (related to fever) or epilepsy, or there's a family history of such conditions.
- It's a MYTH that vaccinations can overload a baby's immune system. In fact, only a tiny fraction of your baby's immune system is used by childhood vaccines, and they come into contact with many more bugs in their daily life. This video explains why vaccines do not weaken your child's immune system.
- It's a MYTH that homeopathy can be used as an alternative to vaccinations to protect children against potentially serious infections. In fact, there's no evidence that homeopathy can protect children against disease and illness.
- It's a MYTH that it's unsafe to take your baby swimming around the time of a vaccination. In fact, you can take your baby swimming at any time before and after their vaccinations.