4 ms·

That's just cruel, it takes away choice of people about their own bodies. I totally see the point of this proposal, but you could achieve a better outcome with

That's just cruel, it takes away choice of people about their own bodies. I totally see the point of this proposal, but you could achieve a better outcome with less authoritarian rules: just forbid non-vaccinated kids to go to public schools, kindergartens, to ride public transport, etc. That would still leave you with the choice of living away from other humans and taking care of your children at home without endangering anyone _and_ without taking away the right to control what happens to your body. In the end most people would choose to just get vaccinated. I especially wonder what happens to people that just pay the fine, are their children still allowed to go to public schools? If yes you didn't really solve the problem, you just created another tax.

drivingmenuts 7y ago
Is it also cruel to let one unvaccinated child endanger the lives of thousands? I'm also fine with sequestering unvaccinated children and adults, but given Germany's history, that might not go over very well. There isn't a good solution here that satisfies all parties and science is on the side of the vaccinated. Sometimes you just have to make hard choices and stick with them.
- sgeisler 7y ago
  > Is it also cruel to let one unvaccinated child endanger the lives of thousands? Right, that's immoral, but what I was getting at was that you can choose to not endanger anybody to a large extent even if you aren't vaccinated. The main problem are densely populated areas and public institutions. If you are just living on a farm in the middle of nowhere barely visiting the neighbor villages there is much less risk involved. > I'm also fine with sequestering unvaccinated children and adults, but given Germany's history, that might not go over very well. I know, I'm German, but the proposal itself bears some resemblance to forced sterilization during that time to "improve public health". It's one of the most tricky policy areas there are and should be handled with more care and consideration. I totally agree that getting vaccinated is the right choice, but without consent it's abuse and if written as law it's tyrannic.
  - detaro 7y ago
    > but without consent it's abuse It's not exactly a new concept that parents' rights to make decisions for their kids isn't absolute (e.g. the law requires that you send your kids to school, and it is not considered abuse if the state enforces that), so there clearly is some potential room for this.
  - drivingmenuts 7y ago
    > I totally agree that getting vaccinated is the right choice, but without consent it's abuse and if written as law it's tyrannic. And what option is there if the parents refuse to give consent? People who refuse to vaccinate their kids for bullshit-science reasons aren’t exactly reasonable to begin with. Tyranny sucks but it’s very occasionally useful and people get over it eventually. Ask any parent who used to a teen about the wannabe Genghis Khan they had for a parent.
  - majewsky 7y ago
    > If you are just living on a farm in the middle of nowhere barely visiting the neighbor villages there is much less risk involved. Sounds like you've never visited Germany.
    - eindiran 7y ago
      > I know, I'm German The post says that GP is German.
- basetop 7y ago
  To start off, I'm vaccinated and I think people should be vaccinated for the most contagious and deadly diseases. But following your logic, should 80 million people get vaccinated just because a few thousand might be affected? Also, science ( especially politicized science ) is on the side of vaccination. But science was on the side of performing hysterectomies on women, using leeches and blood letting, experimenting surgery on black slaves, etc. When it comes to things like rights and bodily autonomy, we shouldn't solely appeal to science because it has a nasty habit of going horrible ( aka nazi germany ). Yes. I agree that sometimes you have to make hard choices. Authoritarianism is always the easy choice. Freedom is the hard choice. It's incredible how the same people who proclaim a woman's body is hers to do with as she wants and yet, when it comes to vaccines, nobody has bodily autonomy. I'm always wary of "everyone has to do X" for the benefit of the few. Strange to find so many pro-authority sentiment on a hacker news site.
  - atoav 7y ago
    A few thoughts: In Germany parents who neglect their parents, can get their parental rights taken away because they are apparently unfit to not harm the rights of their kids. In the US the balance between personal freedom VS other people’s rights is traditionally closer to “personal freedom”, while in the europe after WWII it has been more on the side of “other people’s rights”. If you don’t vaccinate your children against a illness with a mortality rate akin to that of measels, the state has to weigh the parents right to personal freedom against your kids right to be bodily unharmed. You are not allowed to let your kid starve, you are also not allowed to leave your kid unbuckled in the car for the very same reason. It becomes even more clear when you start to factor in the rights of other people that can’t vaccinate because they are pregnant or have a medical condition that doesn’t allow them to. Measels is also highly infectious and can be transmited through the air, so these vulnerable people have no reasonable way to avoid it. The comparison with abortion is a bit weird. No women wishes to go through an abortion. This is about the balance of rights between the women and a unformed embryo. Why european nations are very slightly in favour of the women’s right to decide is because a society doesn’t really gain a lot from unwanted kids and a embryo by our definition is not a person yet. Also: the religious feelings of bystanders don’t have a right here. This of course gets more and more problematic during the growth of the embryo, but this is reflected in German law. You are only allowed to abort up to a certain point unless certain medical conditions arise.
yongjik 7y ago
> just forbid non-vaccinated kids to go to public schools, kindergartens, to ride public transport, etc. So, just because exposing these kids to preventable disease is not enough, your solution is to rob them of public education, and let them be "educated" by anti-vaxx parents? At some point, the right of a child to not get sick and get a normal education (i.e., a chance to lead a normal life) must trump the right of a parent to shove random crap on their children.
detaro 7y ago
> it takes away choice of people about their own bodies. It takes away choice of parents about their children's bodies. That's not quite the same. > you could achieve a better outcome with less authoritarian rules: That's way to much punishment for the kids who don't really have a choice in this, and I'm not sure how it's less authoritarian to basically completely exclude kids from society for a decision their parents made. We also really do not want private schools specializing in unvaccinated children...
atoav 7y ago
Is it tho? In comparison it is certainly reducing your freedom, that you are not allowed to set fire to the flat you own. Not at last because your flat might be in a house where other people have theirs. Vaccination is seen very similar around here. Yes, you have a right to be in control of your own body. But so should be everybody else. The state has to find a solution that values your personal freedom and balances it with the rights other people have. Keep in mind this might also protect children from parents. You are not allowed to neglect your kids, and the state could take them away from you if you repeatedly neglect them. Not vaccinating your kid against a illness with that high of a mortality rate is a form of neglect. You are forced to buckle your kida up in the car with a seatbelt. There is a huge chance this might save their life. There is a tiny chance it might kill them (trapped in a burning car etc). Yet it is mandatory for you to buckle them up. Because thats what prevents thousands of dead kids each year.
HeyZuess 7y ago
This is like saying it takes away my responsibility to beat the crap out of my children whenever I feel like it. Supplying reasonable and preventive healthcare to a child is a parental responsibility, full stop. Now of course every treatment should be weighed fairly based on the treatment itself, but the evidence for vaccinations hugely outweighs the evidence to the contrary. This is not about personal choice, as child cannot be considered to be able to make those types of decisions, it is about proper parenting. Not only this, but these decisions impact on other children as well. I live in a third world country where decisions to vaccinate children aren't based on pseudo science, but rather on economic barriers. When there are outbreaks it can be devastating including outcomes such as death. > just forbid non-vaccinated kids to go to public schools, kindergartens, to ride public transport, etc. I think fining someone to relieve them of the right of choice to vaccination also isn't as bad as taking away the child's right to it's own freedom. Locking away a child is not a right I want to give out in exchange for the right of non-vaccination.

drivingmenuts 7y ago

Is it also cruel to let one unvaccinated child endanger the lives of thousands? I'm also fine with sequestering unvaccinated children and adults, but given Germany's history, that might not go over very well. There isn't a good solution here that satisfies all parties and science is on the side of the vaccinated. Sometimes you just have to make hard choices and stick with them.

sgeisler 7y ago
> Is it also cruel to let one unvaccinated child endanger the lives of thousands? Right, that's immoral, but what I was getting at was that you can choose to not endanger anybody to a large extent even if you aren't vaccinated. The main problem are densely populated areas and public institutions. If you are just living on a farm in the middle of nowhere barely visiting the neighbor villages there is much less risk involved. > I'm also fine with sequestering unvaccinated children and adults, but given Germany's history, that might not go over very well. I know, I'm German, but the proposal itself bears some resemblance to forced sterilization during that time to "improve public health". It's one of the most tricky policy areas there are and should be handled with more care and consideration. I totally agree that getting vaccinated is the right choice, but without consent it's abuse and if written as law it's tyrannic.
- detaro 7y ago
  > but without consent it's abuse It's not exactly a new concept that parents' rights to make decisions for their kids isn't absolute (e.g. the law requires that you send your kids to school, and it is not considered abuse if the state enforces that), so there clearly is some potential room for this.
- drivingmenuts 7y ago
  > I totally agree that getting vaccinated is the right choice, but without consent it's abuse and if written as law it's tyrannic. And what option is there if the parents refuse to give consent? People who refuse to vaccinate their kids for bullshit-science reasons aren’t exactly reasonable to begin with. Tyranny sucks but it’s very occasionally useful and people get over it eventually. Ask any parent who used to a teen about the wannabe Genghis Khan they had for a parent.
- majewsky 7y ago
  > If you are just living on a farm in the middle of nowhere barely visiting the neighbor villages there is much less risk involved. Sounds like you've never visited Germany.
  - eindiran 7y ago
    > I know, I'm German The post says that GP is German.
basetop 7y ago
To start off, I'm vaccinated and I think people should be vaccinated for the most contagious and deadly diseases. But following your logic, should 80 million people get vaccinated just because a few thousand might be affected? Also, science ( especially politicized science ) is on the side of vaccination. But science was on the side of performing hysterectomies on women, using leeches and blood letting, experimenting surgery on black slaves, etc. When it comes to things like rights and bodily autonomy, we shouldn't solely appeal to science because it has a nasty habit of going horrible ( aka nazi germany ). Yes. I agree that sometimes you have to make hard choices. Authoritarianism is always the easy choice. Freedom is the hard choice. It's incredible how the same people who proclaim a woman's body is hers to do with as she wants and yet, when it comes to vaccines, nobody has bodily autonomy. I'm always wary of "everyone has to do X" for the benefit of the few. Strange to find so many pro-authority sentiment on a hacker news site.
- atoav 7y ago
  A few thoughts: In Germany parents who neglect their parents, can get their parental rights taken away because they are apparently unfit to not harm the rights of their kids. In the US the balance between personal freedom VS other people’s rights is traditionally closer to “personal freedom”, while in the europe after WWII it has been more on the side of “other people’s rights”. If you don’t vaccinate your children against a illness with a mortality rate akin to that of measels, the state has to weigh the parents right to personal freedom against your kids right to be bodily unharmed. You are not allowed to let your kid starve, you are also not allowed to leave your kid unbuckled in the car for the very same reason. It becomes even more clear when you start to factor in the rights of other people that can’t vaccinate because they are pregnant or have a medical condition that doesn’t allow them to. Measels is also highly infectious and can be transmited through the air, so these vulnerable people have no reasonable way to avoid it. The comparison with abortion is a bit weird. No women wishes to go through an abortion. This is about the balance of rights between the women and a unformed embryo. Why european nations are very slightly in favour of the women’s right to decide is because a society doesn’t really gain a lot from unwanted kids and a embryo by our definition is not a person yet. Also: the religious feelings of bystanders don’t have a right here. This of course gets more and more problematic during the growth of the embryo, but this is reflected in German law. You are only allowed to abort up to a certain point unless certain medical conditions arise.

yongjik 7y ago

> just forbid non-vaccinated kids to go to public schools, kindergartens, to ride public transport, etc. So, just because exposing these kids to preventable disease is not enough, your solution is to rob them of public education, and let them be "educated" by anti-vaxx parents? At some point, the right of a child to not get sick and get a normal education (i.e., a chance to lead a normal life) must trump the right of a parent to shove random crap on their children.

detaro 7y ago

> it takes away choice of people about their own bodies. It takes away choice of parents about their children's bodies. That's not quite the same. > you could achieve a better outcome with less authoritarian rules: That's way to much punishment for the kids who don't really have a choice in this, and I'm not sure how it's less authoritarian to basically completely exclude kids from society for a decision their parents made. We also really do not want private schools specializing in unvaccinated children...

atoav 7y ago

Is it tho? In comparison it is certainly reducing your freedom, that you are not allowed to set fire to the flat you own. Not at last because your flat might be in a house where other people have theirs. Vaccination is seen very similar around here. Yes, you have a right to be in control of your own body. But so should be everybody else. The state has to find a solution that values your personal freedom and balances it with the rights other people have. Keep in mind this might also protect children from parents. You are not allowed to neglect your kids, and the state could take them away from you if you repeatedly neglect them. Not vaccinating your kid against a illness with that high of a mortality rate is a form of neglect. You are forced to buckle your kida up in the car with a seatbelt. There is a huge chance this might save their life. There is a tiny chance it might kill them (trapped in a burning car etc). Yet it is mandatory for you to buckle them up. Because thats what prevents thousands of dead kids each year.

HeyZuess 7y ago

This is like saying it takes away my responsibility to beat the crap out of my children whenever I feel like it. Supplying reasonable and preventive healthcare to a child is a parental responsibility, full stop. Now of course every treatment should be weighed fairly based on the treatment itself, but the evidence for vaccinations hugely outweighs the evidence to the contrary. This is not about personal choice, as child cannot be considered to be able to make those types of decisions, it is about proper parenting. Not only this, but these decisions impact on other children as well. I live in a third world country where decisions to vaccinate children aren't based on pseudo science, but rather on economic barriers. When there are outbreaks it can be devastating including outcomes such as death. > just forbid non-vaccinated kids to go to public schools, kindergartens, to ride public transport, etc. I think fining someone to relieve them of the right of choice to vaccination also isn't as bad as taking away the child's right to it's own freedom. Locking away a child is not a right I want to give out in exchange for the right of non-vaccination.