3 ms·
Some vaccinations are riskier than others. While it's fairly clear they don't cause autism after that whole braindead debate, they aren't exactly risk free EITH
by duaneb 11y ago
Some vaccinations are riskier than others. While it's fairly clear they don't cause autism after that whole braindead debate, they aren't exactly risk free EITHER, though complications are vaccine specific, rare, and not very well understood because of the rarity.
It's very easy to violate someone's self determination rights with the best intentions and still hurt them. In the virus parallel the vector is an unknown quantity. It doesn't entirely seal the router, and doing it without permission may in fact increase the vulnerability of the router (or brick it, if things go wrong).
I find this really interesting, but it's very hard to back from a moral or ethical point of view.
- logfromblammo 11y agoIt is hard to accept and hard to condemn. I find it to be tolerable. The end result benefits me slightly, yet the means does not entirely justify it. If I lived in the tropics, I'm not certain how I would feel if I returned home to find that a band of rogues had broken into my house, installed new insecticidal bed nets in all bedrooms, and locked up after themselves on their way out, without touching anything else. On the one hand, hey, free bed nets. On the other hand, no one bothered to ask my permission. Or knock. But then maybe I hear about a terrifying disease currently spreading via the saliva of the oogeyboogeyfly, who will chew through untreated bednets, or insecticidal nets older than 6 months, to bite sleeping people, and only new ones treated with skellingtol will work to stop them. In that case, there was - an overriding concern for public safety, from an actual threat - some urgency, such that voluntary compliance might be too slow - a risk that some might not take effective preventative measures - no malicious intent toward me, specifically The target of the action was actually the oogeyboogeyfly, which I was unknowingly providing with a safe platform for spreading disease. So it comes down to the old Star Trek 3 dilemma: if you could save a thousand lives by letting just one person die, would it be ethical to do it? Would it still be ethical if that one person wasn't you?
- duaneb 11y agoYea, but you're ignoring the fact that people might want to get malaria. Not everyone likes being taken care of; some want to live life the way they want to (e.g. short and fast, but without bug nets).
- logfromblammo 11y agoPeople might also want to walk into my living room and remove my television set from it. I can't stop them wanting it, but I can stop them doing it. If you threaten my life, liberty, or property, it is ethical for me to defend those things, regardless of whether your threat is the product of malice, ignorance, or negligence. If you intentionally get yourself infected with a zoonotic pathogen and start cavorting with one of the carrier species, at minimum, you're going to get a severe beating when the town finds out about it. If you don't take care of yourself as a person, someone else might take care of you as their problem.