Mandatory vaccinations vs. right to choose
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Thursday, December 7, 2006 07:56
VIEWED: 21145
PAGE 3 of 21
Quote:The damage is not always obvious.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
This whole, vaccinations are harmful to kids, argument IMO is complete BS. If this were so, given the torrent of kids that get said vaccinations, there'd be a hell of a lot of damaged kids to get taken care of. This obviously isn't the case.
Sigma, I thought you were less black and white about things...
Most vaccines are fine if given at the right time, and avoided when contra-indicated.
Some are useless.
And some can be dangerous when given to sensitive, allergic or sick peeps.
It's not rocket science Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
1. Principle of informed consent. Informed consent is a cardinal tenet of medical ethics (or at least they say it is). No medical intervention, including vaccination, is effective for everyone. No medical intervention, including vaccination, is safe for everyone. You pay trusted health consultants the big bucks to see if X medicine "is right for you." You then evaluated the potential benefits and risks, and give your informed consent or not for the treatment. Vaccines should be no different.
One can only make an informed decision IF they are able to understand the CURRENT medical literature. Otherwise one must trust the professional that they have there best interests at heart.
This also isn't some procedure that has known significant, very probable, dangerous side-effects. The vast vast vast majority of people get a shot and that's it.
I also LOL'd when you called doctors "trusted health consultants".
I mean, you say you trust them. And then you say, don't trust them, make your own decision.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
2. Right to one's body trumps public interest. Bioethicist Arthur Caplan argues, "The Nuremberg Code explicitly rejects the moral argument that the creation of benefits for many justifies the sacrifice of the few. Every experiment, no matter how important or valuable, requires the express voluntary consent of the individual. The right of individuals to control their bodies trumps the interest of others in obtaining knowledge or benefits from them."
You are taking this quote wildly out of context. This quote is refering to experimentation and the right of a person not to participate in an experiment.
The fact of the matter is that the experiment is over. Thus this quote has no place in this discussion.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
3. Vaccination as a one-size-fits-all solution is flawed. The US government is in effect practicing medicine without a license, preempting the tailoring of treatment to each individual. As a result the one-size-fits-all policies, people are unnecessarily injured and killed every year. The US government implicitly condones these injuries and deaths as necessary sacrifices for the public good, and compensates them from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. If these people are to make such a sacrifice for the public good, they should be volunteers, not draftees, in the war against disease.
Sorry to say, but this tailoring of treatment argument is complete BS. As far as I know, the medical establishment doesn't create medication for each individual. Or do every time you buy a bottle of Tylenol or Advil they do tests so that they can tailor your meds?
This also is NOT a treatment; it is prevention. Treatment would be contracting something and then be treated for it.
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, if that’s all rue said, he would probably be right, there is scientific knowledge that demonstrates manmade global warming caused by fossil fuel emissions. But that’s not what people like me would argue. The pertinent text with regard to global warming is the precautionary principle, or what I call the Doomsday Scenario, but there is no conclusive evidence for it, and even most of those who advocate it will tell you that. It’s just a worst case assumption; it’s a precaution, which is made even less conclusive by the assumption that there is anything that can be done about it. The politics blurs that point and seeks to turn the doomsday scenario into inevitability by tying it to evidence of global warming and insists that a knowable solution exists, but in reality it is just as likely to simply be alarmism that is solved with a dose of world-wide socialism. It’s a political entity not a scientific one. On the other hand, there is little inconclusive about what happens when plagues get out of hand, and there is little inconclusive about the deadliness of virulent contagious diseases and there is little inconclusive about the effectiveness of eradicating some of these diseases with vaccines. And while people may disagree on whether the doomsday scenario and its solutions are realistic, not many will disagree about whether smallpox is deadly or that vaccines eradicated it.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Who decides what prevailing scientific knowledge "demonstrates" and who decides that dissidents are "ill-informed"? By those standards, people like Rue say that prevailing scientific knowledge demonstrates manmade global warming caused by fossil fuel emissions, and that it is entirely unwise to let ill-informed persons such as yourself to decide the fate of the majoritiy.
Quote:On its face that’s a good point. Although, a long term solution must rely in eradicating the disease from circulation, because if left in circulation in a large enough volume it could mutate to become immune to the immunization.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
And how exactly does a few individuals decide the fate of the majority simply by not being vaccinated? If vaccines work, and the majority is immunized, they should have nothing to fear. Isn't that the point of vaccines, to protect in event of exposure? Why should protected people be afraid of exposure then?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@chrisisall:
"""
The damage is not always obvious.
"""
Then how do you know that it has happened?
"""
Most vaccines are fine if given at the right time, and avoided when contra-indicated.
Some are useless.
And some can be dangerous when given to sensitive, allergic or sick peeps.
"""
Where I am (Canada) we get our vaccinations over time in several shots. Then later, boosters. Do you guys get them ALL at once? B/c that'd be retarded.
Also, to give a shot to a kid that is already sick is irresponsible.
"""
Sigma, I thought you were less black and white about things...
"""
Let's put it this way, I'm in Canada. Ever wonder why it takes years longer to get drugs cleared for use here then in the US? It's b/c our authorities don't trust the trials of the drug companies and do there own. Things are basically safe by the time it gets into the doctors hands. Though I understand your reluctance being in the US (you're in the US, right?).
Also, you're using the exception to the rule to prove a case, and I don't exactly find that sound.
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And these points might be the vaccine debate equivalent of the Precautionary Principle and Doomsday scenario. How likely is it for plague to get out of hand with current sanitation and food preservation practices? How likely is it for contagious diseases to become deadly with current nutritional and treatment options? Some might say these scenarios are equally political, rather than scientific.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
On the other hand, there is little inconclusive about what happens when plagues get out of hand, and there is little inconclusive about the deadliness of virulent contagious diseases ...
Quote:Actually, those who choose not to vaccinate often debate what they perceive to be the "myth" of eradication. I'll have to address that in another post.
and there is little inconclusive about the effectiveness of eradicating some of these diseases with vaccines.
Quote:Now we get to the bottom of the issue. Mandatory vaccination is not to protect public health (because an immunized public is already protected). It is to wage a war against the Bug. We have the weapon, and we want to equip every single man, woman, and child to win the war for good. Unfortunately, we've decided to draft mostly babies and preschool children who bear the brunt of the side effects. Needless to say, some of us have ethical concerns with this goal, which could be somewhat relieved if only parents were allowed to say no.
Although, a long term solution must rely in eradicating the disease from circulation, because if left in circulation in a large enough volume it could mutate to become immune to the immunization.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
--Douglas Adams, "Last Chance to See"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
There was never a vaccine for scarlet fever. Scarlet fever disappeared on its own, without the help of vaccinations...
That's true. However, of all the childhood diseases for which there were immunizations (such as whooping cough, polio, smallpox, measles, diphtheria, rubella, etc.), the generation which didn't have the immunizations contracted those illnesses in large numbers, while the generation which got the vaccinations did not.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Could some other factor have played a role in the disappearance of these diseases, either instead of or in addition to vaccinations? Maybe the credit claimed by vaccines in eradicating diseases is exaggerated
I think it's a bit much of a coincidence, for these diseases which had been rampant prior to mass immunization, to suddenly become extremely rare after mass immunization. And smallpox wasn't just made "extremely rare", it was eradicated by the vaccine.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Interestingly, the chickenpox vaccine has been linked to shingles later on in life. Now the link is not conclusive, but it does cast reasonable doubt on chickenpox vaxes preventing shingles as a benefit.
Shingles can only appear in someone who had previously contracted chicken pox -- as it is a re-emergence of the same virus.
I'm sure any parent who's had the shingles would never want their children to experience it, and would (if they could) make sure their children never contracted the chicken pox virus in the first place.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hell lets make everything choice. Why should chefs be forced to washing their hands before preparing food if they don't want to? Maybe their religion bans hand washing.
How about if you don't get vaccinated if you contract that disease your Health insurer (or in a place with a sane public health service that body) is under no obligation to cover you for that disease. Seems fair. You want to play russian roullet, you have to pay for the consequences.
Perhaps if its a particularly infectious agent you have to pay for the government tracking of whom you may of infected as well, also fair. You make the choice, you pay for it.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fine, long as YOU pay for the lifelong care of kids who "suddenly" develop autism right after recieving the MMR vaccine.
Have the decency to do your own homework for once, and while yer at it, make real sure to compare autism occurance in vaccinated population versus non-vaccinated (the Amish, for example) and then come back and tell me there's no link.
Nobody is saying it's unwise to vaccinate, what people are saying is whether the risks outweigh the benefits of any specific vaccine in question, case in point - do I really wanna risk hallucinations and suicidal thoughts from a flu shot ? (look it up, several countries have already posted medical advisories)
There's also the slippery slope that is mandatory, or even implied mandatory (get to that in a sec) treatment sponsored by the people who profit off the mandatory product.
This recent attempt to force, for example, more or less rigged psychological evaluations on schoolkids sponsored by the same shitheads who sell psychoactive drugs for use in children - even as it stands, in some school districts, the use of Ritalin is damned near an implied mandatory, all three of my sisters perfectly normal, healthy kids wound up on the ritalin-or-else freight train, said decision forced upon them BY the school administration without one whit of medical examination or evidence, and my sister caved to this demand, and now has three somewhat "disturbed" problem children with a host of health issues....
Again, if you make something mandatory, those who produce the product are going to exploit that, and if you look behind any one of these pushes for mandatory medication, you find big pharma's money behind it.
And we're supposed to trust them ? look at all the horrors they pronounced were so damned safe ?
Thaliomide (sp?) comes to mind, as do some others.
Like hell, I trust my own *informed* judgement, over someone on the big pharma gravy train, every single time.
Side note: These are also the jerks who are pushing meds for "syndromes" they cook up out of sheer imagination - just look at the advertisements... "restless leg syndrome", "overactive bladder syndrome" ?
You want me to trust THESE frankensteins ?
I'd rather have PN do my taxes!
-Frem
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Vaccines for things like Small Pox and similar things I am supportive of, though I feel you should still be given the right to choose. And I find myself again (against the norm) agreeing with Kaneman on this, it is a fools' choice to not get innoculated against these aggressive diseases.
Vaccines for things like the Flu and other 'light' maladies I feel are just adding to this bull scheise perpetual sense of fear we find ourselves in. I hadn't gotten any sort of vaccines for seven years and I didn't get as much as a cold in that time. I join the Army and was forced in Basic Training to get 15 shots. The standard set (Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Tetnus, etc.) and several 'catch-up' shots for all the vaccines I had foregone the previous seven years. In the ten weeks that followed I came down with the flu, a bronchial infection and pnemonia. Frivilous vaccinations destroy your immune system for a short time making you suseptible to alot of other viruses/bacteria you'd normally have no problem fending off.
If you're going to the a region that is a high risk for diseases like Yellow Fever, Amall Pox, Polio, Malaria, etc., get your ass vaccinated, otherwise, use your own judgement to decide what you feel is necessary. Don't let a doctor or a principal force a needle into your arm.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
http://members17.clubphoto.com/michael809717/guest-1.phtml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd like to weigh in here.
First, I understand mistrusting the government/ industry consortium. Rather than having the best of both worlds, somehow the worst got stitched together, like Frankenstein. I suspect private profit was the reason to keep thimersol in - it was a known technology and hey, it costs money to research new ones. I KNOW profit was the reason for the scarcity of the far superior acellular pertussis vaccine - noted for its high level of safety even in seriously compromised individuals. And, on the other hand, there is the government demanding vaccination and then insulating mfgs from lawsuit. (National Childhood Vaccine Injury Program 1986) (The usual conundrum of government in support of private 'free market' profit.)
OTOH I went to some of the sites linked by PhoenixRose. And I saw unconscionable statements like these:
- injection causes asthma
- vaccines are not safe at all
- childhood illnesses have a priming and maturing role in immune system
- vaccines have never prevented any diseases
If you are confused about what's wrong with these statements, email me and I'll be glad to supply lengthy treatises with references.
And then the opponents of vaccination play fast and loose with historical facts and references (there are none). For example, I was curious about England's smallpox epidemic in 1871-2, claimed to be at the height of smallpox vaccinations. If true, this would certainly not only kill public vaccination as a policy but put the last nail in the coffin as well. Since I couldn't find any references in any of the linked sites, I went a-lookin'.
Here is what I found:
------------------------------------------------------
Purchased article - not available for free on the internet
By the 1850s, when compulsory vaccination was first introduced in England, smallpox was already in retreat, though it still killed more than 5000 people every year and left many more disfigured with pock-marks. After the Europe-wide epidemic of 1871–2, when the death rate in England rose to more than 10 000, smallpox went into rapid decline ...
Anti-vaccination sites give the figure as an highly inflated 45,000, unsupported by any references.
http://shm.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/1/49
Vaccination Policy Against Smallpox, 1835–1914: A Comparison of England with Prussia and Imperial Germany
E. P HENNOCK*
*Professor E. P. Hennock, Department of History, University of Liverpool P. O. Box 147, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK
SUMMARY There are three identifiable phases in comparing vaccination policy in England, Prussia, and Imperial Germany. (1) Prior to the 1870s the tradition of medical police in Prussia resulted in the vaccination of the population being treated as a State responsibility earlier than in England and provided an appropriate administrative framework. The administrative pressure that could be exerted persuaded the Prussian authorities that legislation to make vaccination compulsory was unnecessary. In contrast, England and Wales lacked both the tradition and administrative structures of a medical police. Legislation (1840, 1853) for free and universal infant vaccination was followed by radical ideological and administrative innovation (II) From 1875 to 1889 both countries provided free and compulsory vaccination for all. In England this was limited to infants; in Germany including Prussia, it included the re-vaccination of children. (III) After 1889 England and Germany began to diverge more sharply. In England vaccination rates fell and after 1898 conscientious objectors were excused from having to have their children vaccinated Germany retained compulsory vaccination and rates in the two countries increasingly diverged. England came to rely on the local public health administration for the surveillance and containment of smallpox, including selective vaccination of contacts.
Prussia did experience an earlier decline in smallpox mortality, probably due to vaccination policy.
Vaccination was ST
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME