After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?
You mean this question? The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care. True there are other side effects, but extremely rare. And I don't neglect the minority of people here. But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine. It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.
Second of all, no! Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population. The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly. It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question. This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent. There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu. It takes time, and it's very challenging.
You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means." Actually, quite the opposite. This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Government. They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations. Who else?
Finally. Thank you.
Who else? Who better, the individual.
I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal. Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others. It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.
You had me up until second hand smoke.
I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children.
Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now. A two year old with agressive leukemia. Parents choose a treatment. Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment. The problem is, the treatment is killing her. Her liver is being destroyed. So, here is the predicament. The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt? Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong? Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering? Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments? My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen. This is why I mentioned flu shots. The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work. Government involvment rarely helps.
Anyway, I appreciate your direct response. Thank you. Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.
Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario.
Because it doesn't matter what the disease is. That's the point you are missing here. Either government has the authority or the individual. You appear to be comfortable with government. I am not. It really is this simple. You or big brother.
And anyone who administers medicine to my child without my consent will need a little emergency care of their own. Also very simple.
I'm sorry, but the law has given me authority that if your son needs an emergency blood transfusion that is life-saving, I don't need your permission. You should be thankful I won't be wasting your child's precious time to ask you for your consent that I should save him/her while he/she is getting brain death from lack of oxygen.
And I am saying it's a case-by-case basis. YES, I'm saying that IT DOES matter what the disease is. Some things require the government, some don't. As I said before, easily communicable for lethal diseases with efficacious vaccines.
Then we disagree completely. And I stand by my statement of medicine to my children, or any other medical services like condoms in middle school, etc. there is a limit and a line which will not be crossed regardless of yours or anyone else's opinions. But I do like how you jumped from nurses giving shots at school to the worst possible case scenario. That's the same sort of thing abortion advocates use in their debates.
I'm sure your views will change when government has too much power, as they always end up with, outside you current acceptable limits. There must be a barrier of protection for our liberties and you seem unable to understand that.
This is getting into politics, but you are taking your inherent fears and conflating them with long standing governmental policy and practice. Your rights as a parent are no more unlimited than is the power of any government. A civil and sustainable society compels balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the society at large. In the case of war, your almost adult child can be conscripted against your wishes. In the case of a natural disaster such as a wildfire or flood you may be ordered to leave your home with your family. You may choose to stay as an adult, but you will not be allowed to needlessly endanger your child in the process and so on. Your defensive arguments in support of your strongly held (and often instinctively correct in most cases I might add) beliefs are as much as a slippery slope as those you criticize.
