3 ms·

Dawkins is not a stupid man, yet he does not make arguments that the embryo isn't a human life in all his erudite prose. Who will he convince? Our early-modern

by jwie 4y ago

Dawkins is not a stupid man, yet he does not make arguments that the embryo isn't a human life in all his erudite prose. Who will he convince? Our early-modern ancestors, and even those only a few generations ago were more than aware that most babies did not survive. Whether miscarried, birthed still, or died in infancy. Our ancestors never imagined these things weren't deaths, and that those who cause them intentionally, wicked. There were of course exceptions to this judgement, but there is the rub; they were exceptions.

alexvoda 4y ago
Did people of the time you mention or of the present, consider those who caused the intentional death of their own children through rejection of vaccination to be wicked? I would guess antivaxxers both then and now would consider those deaths to be just deaths or the will of the supernatural or maybe even that it was the children who were wicked.
- jwie 4y ago
  It's too bad HN shut down the parent article. But you asked a good question about what early modern persons thought about early modern vaccine analogues. Prior to the smallpox vaccine in the late 18th century, there was a smallpox inoculation. This was a risky, though effective, procedure where a doctor would take pustules from an infected person and give a small amount of the substance to an uninfected person. Smallpox mortality was about 3/10. I don't know what the pre-vaccine strategy's mortality rate was, but it was probably marginally lower, but still a significant risk. Did it outweigh the risk of smallpox? Should parents have done this to their children? Many did, and a proportionate number of people died. Perhaps they made a good risk/reward calculus, but it was always a risk/reward profile they were analyzing, making a decision based on their situation and the best interest of them or their children. These days iatrogenic harm from vaccines is low, but it still exists. The VAERS program tracks vaccine adverse effects. Typically vaccine adverse effects are related to tainted batches of vaccine doses. But this is a risk the system, patients, and doctors tolerate as it tends to be outweighed by the rewards. Medicine and medical interventions today are lower risk than their historical analogues, but no medical intervention, even the occasional ibuprofen or aspirin, is without risk. These risks must be weighed by patient and doctor and ultimatley the patient provides informed consent, or rejects the treatment.

by jwie 4y ago

alexvoda 4y ago

Did people of the time you mention or of the present, consider those who caused the intentional death of their own children through rejection of vaccination to be wicked? I would guess antivaxxers both then and now would consider those deaths to be just deaths or the will of the supernatural or maybe even that it was the children who were wicked.

jwie 4y ago
It's too bad HN shut down the parent article. But you asked a good question about what early modern persons thought about early modern vaccine analogues. Prior to the smallpox vaccine in the late 18th century, there was a smallpox inoculation. This was a risky, though effective, procedure where a doctor would take pustules from an infected person and give a small amount of the substance to an uninfected person. Smallpox mortality was about 3/10. I don't know what the pre-vaccine strategy's mortality rate was, but it was probably marginally lower, but still a significant risk. Did it outweigh the risk of smallpox? Should parents have done this to their children? Many did, and a proportionate number of people died. Perhaps they made a good risk/reward calculus, but it was always a risk/reward profile they were analyzing, making a decision based on their situation and the best interest of them or their children. These days iatrogenic harm from vaccines is low, but it still exists. The VAERS program tracks vaccine adverse effects. Typically vaccine adverse effects are related to tainted batches of vaccine doses. But this is a risk the system, patients, and doctors tolerate as it tends to be outweighed by the rewards. Medicine and medical interventions today are lower risk than their historical analogues, but no medical intervention, even the occasional ibuprofen or aspirin, is without risk. These risks must be weighed by patient and doctor and ultimatley the patient provides informed consent, or rejects the treatment.