4 ms·

Why is no one talking about the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, a nonbinding Declaration signed by the US and every other UNESCO nation? A

Why is no one talking about the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, a nonbinding Declaration signed by the US and every other UNESCO nation? Article 6 – Consent 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. Article 11 – Nondiscrimination and nonstigmatization No individual or group should be discriminated against or stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedom

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
>nonbinding Declaration That's why.
jamroom 5y ago
This is for private business mandates - from the article: The move may encourage some unvaccinated Americans to get the shots as well as give more private businesses across the nation greater confidence to implement vaccine mandates.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  People have been clamoring for government mandates as well. I think this will clear the wat for military and state workers mandates even if CNBC doesn't explicitly say so in this article.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I would be happy with just refusing admittance to hospitals of non vaccinated people without medical exemptions.
    - ezekg 5y ago
      Yes, hippocratic oath be damned.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > hippocratic oath be damned Triage doesn’t violate the Hippocratic oath. Allocating limited medical resources is sometimes a necessity. That said, yes, they shouldn’t be refused. We don’t refuse the mentally ill or others who self harm. But unless it can be shown to be a product of mental illness, the voluntarily unvaccinated should be on the hook for the cost of their treatment.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Why should vaccinated people be denied healthcare resources because the resources are being exhausted by people choosing to ignore medical professionals advice and refuse to get a free vaccine?
        JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > Why should vaccinated people be denied healthcare resources because they are overloaded by people choosing to ignore medical professionals advice and refuse to get a free vaccine? If hospitals are full the voluntarily unvaccinated should be de-prioritised. (If they recover, they’re going to be right back in with the next variant.) But if the hospitals aren’t full, there is no reason to refuse care.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        At the rate with which hospitalizations are occurring, and volatility of the situation, the only viable strategy is to simply turn many of them away and leave a lot of hospital capacity for slack. Hospitals cannot roll the gurneys out into the street and dump non vaccinated people when they need to make room. Once admitted, they can occupy lots of resources for lots of days, so I say just make it easy and tell them to hit the road for the time being. I do not even see a reason why elective procedures should be affected by the selfishness of non vaccinated people.
  - curt15 5y ago
    What other vaccines does the military currently require?
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Adenovirus, Influenza (Flu Shot), Measles, Meningococcal, Mumps, Polio, Rubella, Tetanus-diphtheria, Yellow Fever, Hepatitis A, JE Vaccine, Typhoid, Cholera, Hepatitis B, Measles, Mumps, Plague, Rabies, Varicella, Small Pox, Anthrax https://usarmybasic.com/about-the-army/army-shots https://usarmybasic.com/about-the-army/army-shots
moftz 5y ago
You can obtain a medical exemption if necessary or just refuse to attend school or work for the employer that is requiring the vaccine. You can be homeschooled/attend online college or find an employer that lets you work from home. No one is being forced against their will to receive the vaccine, there is always another option.
eli 5y ago
Probably because appealing to the authority of a nonbinding resolution isn't a very strong argument.
throwaway287391 5y ago
"Mandates" in the headline refers to mandates imposed by businesses and schools, many of which already require vaccines. Why would this particular vaccine would be any different?
forgingahead 5y ago
You're right, it's very sad we've come to this state of affairs. Shame also that the defenders are rushing to justify the coming vaccine passports: "These are private businesses!" "You can just stay home/quit your job/order groceries online/do curbside pickup/etc" "We need to focus on SAFETY". Interesting that the "my body, my choice" crowd has gotten super quiet on this particular issue.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > Interesting that the "my body, my choice" crowd has gotten super quiet on this particular issue. Not really interesting, since abortion does not affect others whereas a transmissible virus does.
  - silicon2401 5y ago
    > abortion does not affect others This is a bad faith argument that makes no effort to understand anti-abortion viewpoints. At least for some subset of their population, the whole basis for their stance is that they assign humanity at conception, not at birth. Hence to say abortion "does not affect others" is an opinion only valid in some viewpoints. (unfortunately, I feel disclaimers are necessary around topics that people tend to not be objective and unemotional about) - I'm not anti-abortion myself; if anything I'm quite pro-abortion and think it should be encouraged in many cases. However I still try to understand the viewpoint of anti-abortion proponents
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      I am aware of the viewpoints of anti abortion choice people, but they are not relevant to forgingahead’s comment that I was replying to. forgingahead’s comment implied that people with the opinion of pro abortion choice are being inconsistent in their belief if “my body, my choice” when it comes to mandating vaccines, to which I intended to clarify how it is not inconsistent because it is actually “my body, my choice [assuming it does not affect others]”.
- jrmg 5y ago
wesleywt 5y ago
Every Ebola carrier has the right to spread Ebola through the population. The Ebola carrier should not be discriminated against by forcing the Ebola carrier to isolate, and prevent him/her from killing the entire village or planet. Public health supercedes individual rights. It has been like this since we started forming large groups of civilizations. If you don't like this, you should leave civilization.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  There's a difference between forcing someone who has a disease to isolate, and forcing someone who's not vaccinated against a disease to isolate.
cde-v 5y ago
Because the covid vaccine is not the first vaccine to be mandated.
- ezekg 5y ago
  It is the first one whose global mandate is sought in order to live a normal life.
  - skuhn 5y ago
    Did you attend elementary school in the US? To attend kindergarten in California, you need to be vaccinated for polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatisis B, chickenpox. To attend 7th grade in California, you need to be vaccinated again for tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis and chickenpox. Did you attend college in the US? Many states (not California) require you to be vaccinated against meningitis before attending freshman year. The specific requirements depend on where you live and attend school [1]. The "normal lives" that we have been able to lead (pre-covid) are in part because of these requirements -- we don't have outbreaks of 50,000 polio cases a year like we did in 1952. [1] https://www.immunize.org/laws/ https://www.immunize.org/laws/
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - have_faith 5y ago
    Is that true? If you were known to carry any of known deadly viruses throughout history which had known vaccines would you be able to live a "normal" life amongst others in society?
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
Nobody should be forced to get the vaccine. But nobody has a right to every private space, nor to spread a disease without liability or repercussion. I’m increasingly of the mind that if you choose to not vaccinate, fine, whatever. We have a right to be stupid because it isn’t always clear ex ante what is stupid and what is brilliant. If you’re voluntarily unvaccinated and you get sick, you’re on the hook for the cost. Of your own treatment as well as anyone it can be proved you infected. Also, all these mandates have medical exemptions. They should also permit equal access with a mask and recent negative COVID test. (I do not think we should subsidise those tests out of the insurance pool or public purse.)
- Buttons840 5y ago
  There was a paper circulating on HN not to long ago about the potential for a vaccine to cause a virus to mutate and become more dangerous for those who are unvaccinated. Would you be ok with charging vaccinated people who get others sick as well? Remember, the vaccine doesn't always stop transmission. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28101752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28101752
- Maf1 5y ago
  I agree I think smokers, drinkers, drug-takers should also fall under this. If they choose not to take advice about reducing smoking, drinking, taking drugs then they should be on the hook for medical treatment.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > smokers, drinkers, drug-takers should also fall under this Those are chronic behaviours. There is evidence that quitting addictions is medically challenging. There is no similar barrier to vaccination for most people. (For those for whom there is, we have medical exemptions. Including for extreme cases of anxiety.)
karaterobot 5y ago
You're right, we should be talking about it. There are good arguments for why a COVID-19 vaccine mandate would not violate these commitments: for one thing in the United States, we have a de facto vaccine mandate for all kids attending public schools. The justification is that not being vaccinated harms other people, and we can require it under the principle that "your right to swing your arms ends where the other man's nose begins". This seems perfectly reasonable to me. But, the key thing is to acknowledge the ethical commitments you've made, and explain your actions. Positions can change, but I would not want my leadership to simply ignore them because they are momentarily inconvenient. If they set that precedent, what's to stop them from ignoring other commitments — binding or otherwise — to defending our allies, protecting our environment, or upholding basic principles of justice?
thehappypm 5y ago
Nobody is being forced to get a vaccine. If you don't want it, you are free to avoid it. You are free to change jobs. You are free to go to a different restaurant. You are free to go to a different concert. As for stigma, I have no problem stigmatizing people for their choices when those choices are harmful to others. I feel comfortable stigmatizing neo-Nazis.

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago

>nonbinding Declaration That's why.

jamroom 5y ago

This is for private business mandates - from the article: The move may encourage some unvaccinated Americans to get the shots as well as give more private businesses across the nation greater confidence to implement vaccine mandates.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
People have been clamoring for government mandates as well. I think this will clear the wat for military and state workers mandates even if CNBC doesn't explicitly say so in this article.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I would be happy with just refusing admittance to hospitals of non vaccinated people without medical exemptions.
  - ezekg 5y ago
    Yes, hippocratic oath be damned.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > hippocratic oath be damned Triage doesn’t violate the Hippocratic oath. Allocating limited medical resources is sometimes a necessity. That said, yes, they shouldn’t be refused. We don’t refuse the mentally ill or others who self harm. But unless it can be shown to be a product of mental illness, the voluntarily unvaccinated should be on the hook for the cost of their treatment.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Why should vaccinated people be denied healthcare resources because the resources are being exhausted by people choosing to ignore medical professionals advice and refuse to get a free vaccine?
        JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > Why should vaccinated people be denied healthcare resources because they are overloaded by people choosing to ignore medical professionals advice and refuse to get a free vaccine? If hospitals are full the voluntarily unvaccinated should be de-prioritised. (If they recover, they’re going to be right back in with the next variant.) But if the hospitals aren’t full, there is no reason to refuse care.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        At the rate with which hospitalizations are occurring, and volatility of the situation, the only viable strategy is to simply turn many of them away and leave a lot of hospital capacity for slack. Hospitals cannot roll the gurneys out into the street and dump non vaccinated people when they need to make room. Once admitted, they can occupy lots of resources for lots of days, so I say just make it easy and tell them to hit the road for the time being. I do not even see a reason why elective procedures should be affected by the selfishness of non vaccinated people.
- curt15 5y ago
  What other vaccines does the military currently require?
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Adenovirus, Influenza (Flu Shot), Measles, Meningococcal, Mumps, Polio, Rubella, Tetanus-diphtheria, Yellow Fever, Hepatitis A, JE Vaccine, Typhoid, Cholera, Hepatitis B, Measles, Mumps, Plague, Rabies, Varicella, Small Pox, Anthrax https://usarmybasic.com/about-the-army/army-shots https://usarmybasic.com/about-the-army/army-shots

moftz 5y ago

You can obtain a medical exemption if necessary or just refuse to attend school or work for the employer that is requiring the vaccine. You can be homeschooled/attend online college or find an employer that lets you work from home. No one is being forced against their will to receive the vaccine, there is always another option.

eli 5y ago

Probably because appealing to the authority of a nonbinding resolution isn't a very strong argument.

throwaway287391 5y ago

"Mandates" in the headline refers to mandates imposed by businesses and schools, many of which already require vaccines. Why would this particular vaccine would be any different?

forgingahead 5y ago

You're right, it's very sad we've come to this state of affairs. Shame also that the defenders are rushing to justify the coming vaccine passports: "These are private businesses!" "You can just stay home/quit your job/order groceries online/do curbside pickup/etc" "We need to focus on SAFETY". Interesting that the "my body, my choice" crowd has gotten super quiet on this particular issue.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
> Interesting that the "my body, my choice" crowd has gotten super quiet on this particular issue. Not really interesting, since abortion does not affect others whereas a transmissible virus does.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  > abortion does not affect others This is a bad faith argument that makes no effort to understand anti-abortion viewpoints. At least for some subset of their population, the whole basis for their stance is that they assign humanity at conception, not at birth. Hence to say abortion "does not affect others" is an opinion only valid in some viewpoints. (unfortunately, I feel disclaimers are necessary around topics that people tend to not be objective and unemotional about) - I'm not anti-abortion myself; if anything I'm quite pro-abortion and think it should be encouraged in many cases. However I still try to understand the viewpoint of anti-abortion proponents
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I am aware of the viewpoints of anti abortion choice people, but they are not relevant to forgingahead’s comment that I was replying to. forgingahead’s comment implied that people with the opinion of pro abortion choice are being inconsistent in their belief if “my body, my choice” when it comes to mandating vaccines, to which I intended to clarify how it is not inconsistent because it is actually “my body, my choice [assuming it does not affect others]”.
jrmg 5y ago

wesleywt 5y ago

Every Ebola carrier has the right to spread Ebola through the population. The Ebola carrier should not be discriminated against by forcing the Ebola carrier to isolate, and prevent him/her from killing the entire village or planet. Public health supercedes individual rights. It has been like this since we started forming large groups of civilizations. If you don't like this, you should leave civilization.

josephcsible 5y ago
There's a difference between forcing someone who has a disease to isolate, and forcing someone who's not vaccinated against a disease to isolate.

cde-v 5y ago

Because the covid vaccine is not the first vaccine to be mandated.

ezekg 5y ago
It is the first one whose global mandate is sought in order to live a normal life.
- skuhn 5y ago
  Did you attend elementary school in the US? To attend kindergarten in California, you need to be vaccinated for polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatisis B, chickenpox. To attend 7th grade in California, you need to be vaccinated again for tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis and chickenpox. Did you attend college in the US? Many states (not California) require you to be vaccinated against meningitis before attending freshman year. The specific requirements depend on where you live and attend school [1]. The "normal lives" that we have been able to lead (pre-covid) are in part because of these requirements -- we don't have outbreaks of 50,000 polio cases a year like we did in 1952. [1] https://www.immunize.org/laws/ https://www.immunize.org/laws/
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- have_faith 5y ago
  Is that true? If you were known to carry any of known deadly viruses throughout history which had known vaccines would you be able to live a "normal" life amongst others in society?

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

Nobody should be forced to get the vaccine. But nobody has a right to every private space, nor to spread a disease without liability or repercussion. I’m increasingly of the mind that if you choose to not vaccinate, fine, whatever. We have a right to be stupid because it isn’t always clear ex ante what is stupid and what is brilliant. If you’re voluntarily unvaccinated and you get sick, you’re on the hook for the cost. Of your own treatment as well as anyone it can be proved you infected. Also, all these mandates have medical exemptions. They should also permit equal access with a mask and recent negative COVID test. (I do not think we should subsidise those tests out of the insurance pool or public purse.)

Buttons840 5y ago
There was a paper circulating on HN not to long ago about the potential for a vaccine to cause a virus to mutate and become more dangerous for those who are unvaccinated. Would you be ok with charging vaccinated people who get others sick as well? Remember, the vaccine doesn't always stop transmission. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28101752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28101752
Maf1 5y ago
I agree I think smokers, drinkers, drug-takers should also fall under this. If they choose not to take advice about reducing smoking, drinking, taking drugs then they should be on the hook for medical treatment.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > smokers, drinkers, drug-takers should also fall under this Those are chronic behaviours. There is evidence that quitting addictions is medically challenging. There is no similar barrier to vaccination for most people. (For those for whom there is, we have medical exemptions. Including for extreme cases of anxiety.)

karaterobot 5y ago

You're right, we should be talking about it. There are good arguments for why a COVID-19 vaccine mandate would not violate these commitments: for one thing in the United States, we have a de facto vaccine mandate for all kids attending public schools. The justification is that not being vaccinated harms other people, and we can require it under the principle that "your right to swing your arms ends where the other man's nose begins". This seems perfectly reasonable to me. But, the key thing is to acknowledge the ethical commitments you've made, and explain your actions. Positions can change, but I would not want my leadership to simply ignore them because they are momentarily inconvenient. If they set that precedent, what's to stop them from ignoring other commitments — binding or otherwise — to defending our allies, protecting our environment, or upholding basic principles of justice?

thehappypm 5y ago

Nobody is being forced to get a vaccine. If you don't want it, you are free to avoid it. You are free to change jobs. You are free to go to a different restaurant. You are free to go to a different concert. As for stigma, I have no problem stigmatizing people for their choices when those choices are harmful to others. I feel comfortable stigmatizing neo-Nazis.