4 ms·

This might be one reason they are uncomfortable with mandatory vaccination orders, but there's also the fact that the government is putting a gun to your head a

This might be one reason they are uncomfortable with mandatory vaccination orders, but there's also the fact that the government is putting a gun to your head and saying, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Now I'm going to stick this needle in you. Don't resist and nobody will get hurt."

logicchains 6y ago
It's also a violation of the UN "right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment" (https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet31.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet31.pdf)
- Galanwe 6y ago
  Apologies, but could you clarify "non-consensual" for non native English speakers? Does this mean "no consent given for the medication" or "medication that is not part of an agreed consensus"? If the former, then there are literally tons of occurrences of this everywhere.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    It means the former. What are some examples of medication being given without consent in developed countries?
    - LarvaFX 6y ago
      Tuberculosis
      - logicchains 6y ago
        In which countries? The Tuberculosis vaccine is generally not even given in the US, let alone mandatory.
    - Galanwe 6y ago
      Well the most obvious instance that comes to my mind are suicidal persons. I don't think it is legal for someone to say "I am suicidal, I do not want to be treated if I try to harm myself". I am also not sure of the implications that it entails. If I find someone injured on the street, and he tells me he does not want help, would it then be against the law for me to discard his instructions and help him?
  - perpetualpatzer 6y ago
    It means the former (can't give treatment a patient doesn't consent to). Are there specific types of situations you're thinking about? Outside of cases where the patient is unable to provide consent (minority, mental incapacity, unconscious in exigent circumstances), I believe this is largely followed in the US, at least. Childhood vaccines, for example, are optional if you don't want to attend public (or many private) schools.
- querez 6y ago
  This could be said of all required vaccines, though, and the same counter-arguments apply: One individual's freedom to not vaccine hurts other people's right to health (e.g. via reduced herd immunity which hurts people who cannot get vaccinated) and should thus take a backseat.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    >This could be said of all required vaccines, though, and the same counter-arguments apply: One individual's freedom to not vaccine hurts other people's right to health (e.g. via reduced herd immunity which hurts people who cannot get vaccinated) and should thus take a backseat. The whole point of rights is that they're non-conditional. That's why most western countries currently don't do any forced vaccinations (although some may deny certain government services to people who are unvaccinated). Without a strong commitment to human rights, there's nothing to stop the next racist dictator who comes along from sterilising ethnicities or political groups he doesn't like (as is allegedly happening in Xinjiang).
    - perpetualpatzer 6y ago
      > The whole point of rights is that they're non-conditional. I agree with the broad point about the importance of the right to consent/ refuse treatment. But, surely, there can be places where individuals' rights conflict and society's tie-breaking creates conditions on the rights. Freedom of religion as long as your religion isn't to sacrifice unwilling virgins. Freedom of speech as long as what you want to say isn't to make false claims about the safety of your food product. Rights are "unconditioned where possible" and where they conflict, it's an appropriate place for societies to debate their merits, metes, and bounds.
      - logicchains 6y ago
        That's why rights can be broken down into two kinds: positive rights (which entail an obligation on somebody else's part to do something) and negative rights (which only entail an obligation on somebody else's part not to do something to you): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights. The nice thing about negative rights is they generally don't conflict, and freedom from unwanted medical treatment is a negative right.
hoseja 6y ago
It's called monopoly on violence and there are worse examples, but perhaps it doesn't even occur to you to imagine them.
- jtbayly 6y ago
  Why do you assume I'm unaware of what I'm saying? I'm well aware of what it's called, and also other examples. I don't see how the fact that there are worse examples makes it irrelevant in this case.

logicchains 6y ago

It's also a violation of the UN "right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment" (https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet31.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet31.pdf)

Galanwe 6y ago
Apologies, but could you clarify "non-consensual" for non native English speakers? Does this mean "no consent given for the medication" or "medication that is not part of an agreed consensus"? If the former, then there are literally tons of occurrences of this everywhere.
- logicchains 6y ago
  It means the former. What are some examples of medication being given without consent in developed countries?
  - LarvaFX 6y ago
    Tuberculosis
    - logicchains 6y ago
      In which countries? The Tuberculosis vaccine is generally not even given in the US, let alone mandatory.
  - Galanwe 6y ago
    Well the most obvious instance that comes to my mind are suicidal persons. I don't think it is legal for someone to say "I am suicidal, I do not want to be treated if I try to harm myself". I am also not sure of the implications that it entails. If I find someone injured on the street, and he tells me he does not want help, would it then be against the law for me to discard his instructions and help him?
- perpetualpatzer 6y ago
  It means the former (can't give treatment a patient doesn't consent to). Are there specific types of situations you're thinking about? Outside of cases where the patient is unable to provide consent (minority, mental incapacity, unconscious in exigent circumstances), I believe this is largely followed in the US, at least. Childhood vaccines, for example, are optional if you don't want to attend public (or many private) schools.
querez 6y ago
This could be said of all required vaccines, though, and the same counter-arguments apply: One individual's freedom to not vaccine hurts other people's right to health (e.g. via reduced herd immunity which hurts people who cannot get vaccinated) and should thus take a backseat.
- logicchains 6y ago
  >This could be said of all required vaccines, though, and the same counter-arguments apply: One individual's freedom to not vaccine hurts other people's right to health (e.g. via reduced herd immunity which hurts people who cannot get vaccinated) and should thus take a backseat. The whole point of rights is that they're non-conditional. That's why most western countries currently don't do any forced vaccinations (although some may deny certain government services to people who are unvaccinated). Without a strong commitment to human rights, there's nothing to stop the next racist dictator who comes along from sterilising ethnicities or political groups he doesn't like (as is allegedly happening in Xinjiang).
  - perpetualpatzer 6y ago
    > The whole point of rights is that they're non-conditional. I agree with the broad point about the importance of the right to consent/ refuse treatment. But, surely, there can be places where individuals' rights conflict and society's tie-breaking creates conditions on the rights. Freedom of religion as long as your religion isn't to sacrifice unwilling virgins. Freedom of speech as long as what you want to say isn't to make false claims about the safety of your food product. Rights are "unconditioned where possible" and where they conflict, it's an appropriate place for societies to debate their merits, metes, and bounds.
    - logicchains 6y ago
      That's why rights can be broken down into two kinds: positive rights (which entail an obligation on somebody else's part to do something) and negative rights (which only entail an obligation on somebody else's part not to do something to you): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights. The nice thing about negative rights is they generally don't conflict, and freedom from unwanted medical treatment is a negative right.

hoseja 6y ago

It's called monopoly on violence and there are worse examples, but perhaps it doesn't even occur to you to imagine them.

jtbayly 6y ago
Why do you assume I'm unaware of what I'm saying? I'm well aware of what it's called, and also other examples. I don't see how the fact that there are worse examples makes it irrelevant in this case.