3 ms·

In what way does an individual have the right to not be vaccinated? More generally, in what way can the state not impose on the individual's health (Especially

In what way does an individual have the right to not be vaccinated? More generally, in what way can the state not impose on the individual's health (Especially when it believes it is improving it)? There is a lot of talk about rights here, yet no explanation of why the right to not be vaccinated exists. The reason why the U.S. has a Bill of Rights is because many things we consider rights are not inalienable. The exact argument, and I present two quotes from the Supreme Court, that vaccines can cause harm [0] and that they therefore should not be allowed to be mandatory have been heard and refuted [1]. [0] "The defendant offered to prove that vaccination 'quite often' caused serious and permanent injury to the health of the person vaccinated; that the operation 'occasionally' resulted in death; that it was 'impossible' to tell 'in any particular case' what the results of vaccination would be, or whether it would injure the health or result in death" [1] "It seems to the court that an affirmative answer to these questions would practically strip the legislative department of its function to care for the public health and the public safety when endangered by epidemics of disease. Such an answer would mean that compulsory vaccination could not, in any conceivable case, be legally enforced in a community, even at the command of the legislature, however widespread the epidemic of smallpox, and however deep and universal was the belief of the community and of its medical advisers that a system of general vaccination was vital to the safety of all."

jdoliner 10y ago
Whether or not an individual has a right to not be vaccinated is really the question at stake here. AFAIK we don't yet have a direct SCOTUS decision on this and the default is that individuals can't be compelled to undergo procedures. That's not an argument either way, I'm just summarizing my understanding of the state of the world today. The discussion in this thread, at least my comments, are entirely about what I think the rights should be. I think it's very likely that we'll see a SCOTUS case in the near future about just this issue since we're getting close to a breaking point. My argument is that we're going to have a number of nasty things to contend with once we go down the road of forcing medical procedures for societal goods. As I mentioned else where in this thread there was a time when SCOTUS ruled that forced sterilization could be used to implement eugenics. [0] That's the type of thing I think we'd be opening ourselves up to by not respecting people's right to decline procedures. To draw another parallel that may resonate with the HN crowd. The argument that decided Roe V. Wade was that a right to privacy under the 14th Amendment implies a right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. I can't see any way that argument is going to hold up in a world where a right to privacy doesn't also imply a right to choose whether or not to be vaccinated. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
- alextheparrot 10y ago
  The case you are looking for is Jacobson v. Massachusetts [0], which is where I pulled my excerpts from. It held that the 14th in this case allows forced vaccination (Well, doesn't violate). I'm familiar with the Buck v. Bell (Forced sterilization is allowed, as you mentioned) case as well as Prince v. Massachusetts (Schools can require vaccinations), though the argument made by the courts in all cases was to the effect that the society out-weighs the individual in the matter of health. What we implement on-top of that is up to the legislature, but the courts have shown an understanding that the state has a role in health. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
  - jdoliner 10y ago
    Point well taken, although I believe the decision did explicit say that vaccines can't be forced on people but people can be punished for refusal to take vaccines. Including being imprisoned and fined. Slight distinction, but still I was unaware of the ruling so thanks for sharing. In practice it seems that people are seldom forced to take vaccines these days, except maybe by virtue of being denied access to public school. Do you expect to see that changing soon? I think given the circumstances and the existing ruling it seems quite likely.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Whether or not an individual has a right to not be vaccinated is really the question at stake here. No, it's really not. Whether a parent has the right to neglect vaccinating their child is. There is almost exactly zero debate over mandatory vaccines for adults.

jdoliner 10y ago

Whether or not an individual has a right to not be vaccinated is really the question at stake here. AFAIK we don't yet have a direct SCOTUS decision on this and the default is that individuals can't be compelled to undergo procedures. That's not an argument either way, I'm just summarizing my understanding of the state of the world today. The discussion in this thread, at least my comments, are entirely about what I think the rights should be. I think it's very likely that we'll see a SCOTUS case in the near future about just this issue since we're getting close to a breaking point. My argument is that we're going to have a number of nasty things to contend with once we go down the road of forcing medical procedures for societal goods. As I mentioned else where in this thread there was a time when SCOTUS ruled that forced sterilization could be used to implement eugenics. [0] That's the type of thing I think we'd be opening ourselves up to by not respecting people's right to decline procedures. To draw another parallel that may resonate with the HN crowd. The argument that decided Roe V. Wade was that a right to privacy under the 14th Amendment implies a right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. I can't see any way that argument is going to hold up in a world where a right to privacy doesn't also imply a right to choose whether or not to be vaccinated. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

alextheparrot 10y ago
The case you are looking for is Jacobson v. Massachusetts [0], which is where I pulled my excerpts from. It held that the 14th in this case allows forced vaccination (Well, doesn't violate). I'm familiar with the Buck v. Bell (Forced sterilization is allowed, as you mentioned) case as well as Prince v. Massachusetts (Schools can require vaccinations), though the argument made by the courts in all cases was to the effect that the society out-weighs the individual in the matter of health. What we implement on-top of that is up to the legislature, but the courts have shown an understanding that the state has a role in health. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
- jdoliner 10y ago
  Point well taken, although I believe the decision did explicit say that vaccines can't be forced on people but people can be punished for refusal to take vaccines. Including being imprisoned and fined. Slight distinction, but still I was unaware of the ruling so thanks for sharing. In practice it seems that people are seldom forced to take vaccines these days, except maybe by virtue of being denied access to public school. Do you expect to see that changing soon? I think given the circumstances and the existing ruling it seems quite likely.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Whether or not an individual has a right to not be vaccinated is really the question at stake here. No, it's really not. Whether a parent has the right to neglect vaccinating their child is. There is almost exactly zero debate over mandatory vaccines for adults.