4 ms·

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

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.

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.