Call for vaccine opt-out penalty

[Rich' Trash]

Originally Posted by 469er

What, that it was middle-class overprotectiveness to keep a child who is very allergic to nettles away from them??

No I think its overprotective to keep them away from nettles if you just have an 'inkling' that they might be allergic to them - especially if the 'inkling' is that they might get some sort of mild rash. This point is even more significant if they enjoy being around nettles... (some kids are wierd I guess..).

[agneishd]

did biology coursework on stinging nettles

[Rich' Trash]

Originally Posted by agneishd

"the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
- Spock

NB i'm not a trekkie

I think you'll find that Spock nicked the idea of utilitarianism from someone else :P (not me).

[agneishd]

quite possibly

considering he is only an actor speaking lines

[Rich' Trash]

Well rather, the writers of Star Trek might have nicked the idea from somewhere else :P

[agneishd]

yeh, didn't infer the writers invented the idea!

[Pammy]

I'm not sure you can apply this formula in all cases...First of all utilitarianism specifies "the greatest benefit for the greatest number" - so it is possible, if the benefit is colossal, even though it only applies to a few, to still make pursuing it a worthwhile endeavour...
Else, we why should we ever invest money to research rare diseases! And there are often cases (especially politics) where minority interests need protecting...I don't think medical decisions can always simply be taken along the lines of helping a greater number of people - so many other factors come into it.

[Singh.Simran]

Originally Posted by Pammy

I generally agree with everything you said on this thread Sim :-)

Thanks..it's refreshingly unusual to hear something like that online, especially on debates, even when people do they rarely say it..

However, I am not sure, still, on the sexually transmitted diseases. Imagine there was finally an HIV vaccine...Imagine it was effective, but it had a very, very slight risk (almost negligible) of adverse reactions, or, worse, an effect that might make it easier in the future to acquire HIV (they have found such things with some of the microbicides they tested!).
Now is it fair to give this vaccine to someone who can personally ensure that he/she will never be exposed to HIV? At least with the other vaccines, everyone shares the risk, but everyone also shares the benefit...

I'd put that down as unfairly tyrannical to the individual. with no conpulsion there you'd still drastically cut HIV rates, and indeed the unvaccinated would be very sure of the risks, yet noone's possibly being forced to a detrimental effect on their body - one which is known about.

If it was merely adverse reactions, then i'm unsure. Minor cimplications sure, make it compulsory, theyll be fixed medically and the good is just too great. death, no. that's too tyrannical.

[Singh.Simran]

I think, pammy, that the principle is still useful in that if one cannot choose and one is in a certain position where the choice is not free, it is as good as anything to be bound by (e.g. the position that NICE are in in limited resources and certain rules to make)

But when the choice is different, and utilitarianism itself allows for that (after all, the greatest good to the greatest number is surely free will and liberty?), the effect in a closed-system may be un-utilitarian - say, a man's free choice to donate to charity and he gives all 10m to dogs not men.

But i think the world as a whole, averaged out, though one particular event asessed alone may not be, comes out along those principles. It's really a greater evil to prevent that man having that choice, or a patient being able to refuse HIV treatment (and thus being more dangerous), on the bigger picture.

[Pammy]

One thing regarding "compulsory vaccination" - I think it's almost the case that people hear this phrase "compulsory" and start to panic. In many other situations in life, they willingly accept certain rules and procedures...E.g. if you work in a restaurant, you comply with the hygiene regulations, even if the handwashing-detergent might cause you some redness of your hands. Same if you work in a lab - you have to stick to the safety protocols even if you say you don't care if something happens to you. All doctors happily get their required vaccinations done - I don't hear any of us complaining (how come we feel more responsibility to our patients than anybody else feels towards there fellow humans?). If there was an outbreak of e.g. birdflu, the government would put in place emergency measures and restrictions that everybody would accept - that might include some people taking medication. I think with the SARS scares a few years ago people could be quarantined for a week or so. And at an airport you might have to be searched or even X-rayed if suspicious...