3 ms·

>None of this detracts from the abject denial of reality that is embodied in someone who has decided not to vaccinate their kids at all I didn't suggest that i

>None of this detracts from the abject denial of reality that is embodied in someone who has decided not to vaccinate their kids at all I didn't suggest that it should comprise an argument for an automatic rejection of all vaccines. Quite the opposite, actually. But, if you acknowledge that some vaccines have questionable benefit and higher risks that don't make sense for all, then it begs the question: who decides? Seems to me parents should have discretion there. Now, it comes down to whether you agree with their tolerance for risk. To be clear, I think vaccines are mostly wonderful. I just don't think it's my place to go around thumping people on the head about the choices they make for their own children.

nommm-nommm 10y ago
It is your place when your life or the life of your children or family is dependent on "the choices [other people] make for their own children,"
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  No, it's actually not. You are not required to assume any risk for my sake; nor I for yours.
dalke 10y ago
Some babies aren't old enough to have been vaccinated. Some people are immunocompromised, including children. Some of these people are unable to be vaccinated. In order to avoid infection, these people depend on having enough other people be vaccinated. If it's a question of personal discretion, shouldn't the parent of one those children have the discretion to force others to be vaccinated, in order that their own child won't die? You asked "who decides?". Jacobson v. Massachusetts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts ) decided "that it is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination. That case and others had also settled that a state may, consistently with the federal Constitution, delegate to a municipality authority to determine under what conditions health regulations shall become operative. Laurel Hill Cemetery v. San Francisco, 216 U. S. 358. And still others had settled that the municipality may vest in its officials broad discretion in matters affecting the application and enforcement of a health law. Lieberman v. Van de Carr, 199 U. S. 552." That quote comes from Zucht v. King, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/260/174/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/260/174/case.htm... , which settled that a city could require vaccinations in order for a child to attend school. You may not like it, but Prince v. Massachusetts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_v._Massachusetts ) established that "the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare." So yes, the parents have some discretion. It isn't absolute. We have a government in part so we can collectively make hard decisions like this one.
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  >Some of these people are unable to be vaccinated I don't know how the count of these "unvaccinatable" people compares to those who suffer adverse reactions from vaccines, but it grows even stranger to demand that everyone assume risk for even smaller segments of the population; especially if the primary argument is a common welfare numbers game. BTW, FWIW, some pretty heinous activities have been conducted in the name of the common welfare, including human experimentation. I'm obviously not saying this is happening here; only that "because common welfare" is not an ipso facto rationale. We've all benefitted from experiments, etc. at the expense of others. But, we later acknowledged that some of these things were completely unethical because, at some point, the rights of the individual trump even the common welfare. Anyway, clearly the government has decided. My question was who should decide? More specifically, I was speaking to the parent comment's acknowledgement that some discrimination among vaccines is prudent. At the same time, the commenter expressed anger over parents opting out of vaccines. Well, if discrimination is warranted but the commenter is angry about someone else's manner of discrimination, then that boils down to the commenter believing he/she should be the one who decides. Again, I believe vaccines are generally beneficial, however, I also believe it's wrong to berate parents who don't blindly follow the vaccine schedule. The relatively low percentages of serious adverse reactions are little comfort when you're the one who is impacted. I'm just not prepared to demand that someone else do anything to their bodies for my sake, at any risk to him/her.
  - dalke 10y ago
    Parents have also done pretty heinous activities in the name of parental discretion. Simply pointing out that heinous activities have occurred is therefore meaningless. Government policies also agree "that some discrimination among vaccines is prudent". That why some are mandatory and some are voluntary. That's why the polio vaccine switched from using attenuated live viruses to dead ones, even though the latter isn't as effective. There is no requirement that everyone follow a vaccination schedule. As I pointed out, there are good medical reasons for why someone might not be vaccinated. The question is, should non-medical reasons be enough to justify a variance? Should a general sense of malaise be enough? Or, if someone expresses a concern that their child might get ill as a result of a vaccine, and that concern - based on knowing the counts rather than expressed by people who don't - has already been factored into the decision to require vaccination, then should the opinion of one non-expert parent overweigh the opinions of thousands of experts made as the result of decades of study, with open publications and public participation, and repeated in scores of countries? Any absolute statement like yours, which says the parent's discretion comes first, means there is no way to keep a parent from heinous activities, nor for that matter can children be required to go to school. We see this tension already for Jehovah's Witnesses, where doctrine prohibits the use of blood transfusions. If a 2 year old needs surgery which requires a blood transfusion, should the JW parent have a right to let the child die in order to follow the faith? The US says (as do other countries) the doctor has the right to overrule the parent's wishes in that case. Do you want otherwise?
Nursie 10y ago
They're making a choice that endangers their own kids and other people. They should be thumped, when airing their views in public, so their ignorance doesn't spread.

nommm-nommm 10y ago

It is your place when your life or the life of your children or family is dependent on "the choices [other people] make for their own children,"

unclebucknasty 10y ago
No, it's actually not. You are not required to assume any risk for my sake; nor I for yours.

dalke 10y ago

Some babies aren't old enough to have been vaccinated. Some people are immunocompromised, including children. Some of these people are unable to be vaccinated. In order to avoid infection, these people depend on having enough other people be vaccinated. If it's a question of personal discretion, shouldn't the parent of one those children have the discretion to force others to be vaccinated, in order that their own child won't die? You asked "who decides?". Jacobson v. Massachusetts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts ) decided "that it is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination. That case and others had also settled that a state may, consistently with the federal Constitution, delegate to a municipality authority to determine under what conditions health regulations shall become operative. Laurel Hill Cemetery v. San Francisco, 216 U. S. 358. And still others had settled that the municipality may vest in its officials broad discretion in matters affecting the application and enforcement of a health law. Lieberman v. Van de Carr, 199 U. S. 552." That quote comes from Zucht v. King, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/260/174/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/260/174/case.htm... , which settled that a city could require vaccinations in order for a child to attend school. You may not like it, but Prince v. Massachusetts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_v._Massachusetts ) established that "the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare." So yes, the parents have some discretion. It isn't absolute. We have a government in part so we can collectively make hard decisions like this one.

unclebucknasty 10y ago
>Some of these people are unable to be vaccinated I don't know how the count of these "unvaccinatable" people compares to those who suffer adverse reactions from vaccines, but it grows even stranger to demand that everyone assume risk for even smaller segments of the population; especially if the primary argument is a common welfare numbers game. BTW, FWIW, some pretty heinous activities have been conducted in the name of the common welfare, including human experimentation. I'm obviously not saying this is happening here; only that "because common welfare" is not an ipso facto rationale. We've all benefitted from experiments, etc. at the expense of others. But, we later acknowledged that some of these things were completely unethical because, at some point, the rights of the individual trump even the common welfare. Anyway, clearly the government has decided. My question was who should decide? More specifically, I was speaking to the parent comment's acknowledgement that some discrimination among vaccines is prudent. At the same time, the commenter expressed anger over parents opting out of vaccines. Well, if discrimination is warranted but the commenter is angry about someone else's manner of discrimination, then that boils down to the commenter believing he/she should be the one who decides. Again, I believe vaccines are generally beneficial, however, I also believe it's wrong to berate parents who don't blindly follow the vaccine schedule. The relatively low percentages of serious adverse reactions are little comfort when you're the one who is impacted. I'm just not prepared to demand that someone else do anything to their bodies for my sake, at any risk to him/her.
- dalke 10y ago
  Parents have also done pretty heinous activities in the name of parental discretion. Simply pointing out that heinous activities have occurred is therefore meaningless. Government policies also agree "that some discrimination among vaccines is prudent". That why some are mandatory and some are voluntary. That's why the polio vaccine switched from using attenuated live viruses to dead ones, even though the latter isn't as effective. There is no requirement that everyone follow a vaccination schedule. As I pointed out, there are good medical reasons for why someone might not be vaccinated. The question is, should non-medical reasons be enough to justify a variance? Should a general sense of malaise be enough? Or, if someone expresses a concern that their child might get ill as a result of a vaccine, and that concern - based on knowing the counts rather than expressed by people who don't - has already been factored into the decision to require vaccination, then should the opinion of one non-expert parent overweigh the opinions of thousands of experts made as the result of decades of study, with open publications and public participation, and repeated in scores of countries? Any absolute statement like yours, which says the parent's discretion comes first, means there is no way to keep a parent from heinous activities, nor for that matter can children be required to go to school. We see this tension already for Jehovah's Witnesses, where doctrine prohibits the use of blood transfusions. If a 2 year old needs surgery which requires a blood transfusion, should the JW parent have a right to let the child die in order to follow the faith? The US says (as do other countries) the doctor has the right to overrule the parent's wishes in that case. Do you want otherwise?

Nursie 10y ago

They're making a choice that endangers their own kids and other people. They should be thumped, when airing their views in public, so their ignorance doesn't spread.