4 ms·
I think that guy may have a point though. Take pertussis vaccine for example: pertussis may be deadly for newborns, but they cannot be vaccinated until they ar
by AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
I think that guy may have a point though.
Take pertussis vaccine for example: pertussis may be deadly for newborns, but they cannot be vaccinated until they are of a certain age. We have here to vaccinate one group to protect another.
Is it ethical? Can we really mandate one group to risk their health to protect another?
One may say that in this case the risk is minimal and the benefits are great, but at this point we stop dealing with facts and go into emotional sphere.
One of the problems is that in the vaccination talks it's usually either "all vaccines are the godsend blessing" or "all vaccines are dealy poisons". A thought that some vaccines prevent thousands of deaths and some were just piggybacked by the "big pharma" is vehemently rejected by both sides.
- AstralStorm 8y agoNo, the benefit and risks are not matter of opinion, but numbers. The opinion is whether it is worth a very tiny risk of adverse reaction of a big group against a moderate risk of death of other people in a small group. These amounts are all quantifiable, unlike a dumb trolley problem, but many people do not like tiny risks even if it were to save someone's life.
- AlexTWithBeard 8y agoI hear what you say, but how tiny is tiny and how moderate is moderate? Can we blame the people for not willing to put their lives at risk, albeit small? Can we blame parents for not willing to put their children's lives at small risk for saving some other adult? I believe that should be the subject of the discussion, not whether vaccines cause autism (apparently they don't) or whether pharmaceutical corporations are greedy (yes, they are like any corporation). And - as a separate, but related question - what do we do with religious exemptions here?