2 ms·
Since children can't provide their own informed consent, its very morally dubious to give them medical treatments for something that is unlikely to make them si
by dukeofdoom 5y ago
Since children can't provide their own informed consent, its very morally dubious to give them medical treatments for something that is unlikely to make them sick, and seems on balance for the benefit of the parents. This is quite different from the other vaccines they currently take.
In the event that the covid vaccine turn out to have long term health effects, a child has a long life to live with those side effects, unlike a 70 year old. So their risk is greater, and their potential suffering much longer lasting.
Societies have generally made sacrifices for their children, and not sacrificed their children for the benefit of the elderly. The courts have also generally held the interests of the child supersedes the interests of the parents.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- squiffsquiff 5y agoThere's a significant precedent in this area: Rubella. Vaccinations are typically provided at 3-4 months of age (e.g. in UK). Rubella is typically a relatively mild disease with the exception of pregnancy when it can have severe effects on the foetus. The principal beneficiaries are those becoming pregnant many years later and the unvaccinated in the general population. This isn't contentious. Why is a similar position regarding COVID vaccination?
- dv_dt 5y agoHarm is not limited to direct medical causes. Parents dying of Covid will cause significant mental and financial harm