5 ms·

> These days, the idea of compelled vaccination is pretty controversial, so the idea that we are going to take away peoples' liberty and force them to take psyc

> These days, the idea of compelled vaccination is pretty controversial, so the idea that we are going to take away peoples' liberty and force them to take psychotropic drugs after we've imprisoned them seems beyond belief. This is already happening. Compelled vaccination is completely different than a mentally disturbed member of our society roaming the streets unhinged. I have been party to several title 36[1] cases and it's very, very difficult to get dangerous people "petitioned". It requires coordination between disparate agencies like hospitals, Fire/EMS, Police, community mental health orgs, etc. None of them share a database. Once they are found to be incapable of living on their own, what do we do with them? Jail? Hospital? Half-way house/Assisted Living? I will tell you... They end up back on the streets and it isn't pretty. The underbelly of every American city is a nasty, grimy, horrific place. I need to retire. [1] https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=36 https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=36

sbuccini 3y ago
You should write more on this topic.
- devilbunny 3y ago
  There is no shortage of writing on this. The Supreme Court decisions of the early 1970s on mental health were well-intentioned but disastrous.
  - sbuccini 3y ago
    I am very curious to hear the personal experiences of a frontline firefighter/EMT in Phoenix
  - wahern 3y ago
    > The Supreme Court decisions of the early 1970s on mental health were well intentioned but disastrous. Those decisions still left much room for coerced treatment, so it's not clear how disastrous they were. Most if not all states and cities ended up with additional legislation, caselaw, and normative policies that made coerced treatment (including outpatient treatment) much more difficult.
amadeuspagel 3y ago
Compelled vaccination — forcing people to endure the pain of a needle and a few hours of feeling sore in their arm — is indeed completely different from locking people up in mental institutions for decades.
- gretch 3y ago
  This is a strawman - no one is complaining about the pain of the stab. It’s 100% the juice inside the syringe. This is the CDC site on the history of vaccine incidents: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.... Bad things can and do happen and it doesn’t do any good to pretend they don’t. Of course the reward is far worth the risk with modern science, but some people are still afraid of shit like this.
- baremetal 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - sgath92 3y ago
    Vaccinations /= medical experimentation. Are you suggesting we as a species should still be being ravished by the scourge of smallpox?
  - thebooktocome 3y ago
    The Nuremberg Code is about medical experimentation, not vaccination programs. The Nuremberg Code is not really relevant to modern medical ethics, or even to the history of medical ethics--its authors plagiarized [1] half of it from the 1931 Guidelines for Human Experimentation [2]. The relevant standard these days is the seventh revision of the Declaration of Helsinki, by the World Medical Association. No, the use of COVID-19 vaccines was not "experimental" [3]: > COVID-19 vaccines used in practice and involved in vaccination mandates are either authorized or fully approved by national regulatory authorities. Hence, they are not experimental and not part of research, and thus not covered by the Nuremberg Code. Taking approved medicines prescribed or used as a matter of regular medical or public health practice does not constitute an experiment or research in any common understandings of the terms. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3121268/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3121268/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_human_subject_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_human_subject_r... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10127050/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10127050/

sbuccini 3y ago

You should write more on this topic.

devilbunny 3y ago
There is no shortage of writing on this. The Supreme Court decisions of the early 1970s on mental health were well-intentioned but disastrous.
- sbuccini 3y ago
  I am very curious to hear the personal experiences of a frontline firefighter/EMT in Phoenix
- wahern 3y ago
  > The Supreme Court decisions of the early 1970s on mental health were well intentioned but disastrous. Those decisions still left much room for coerced treatment, so it's not clear how disastrous they were. Most if not all states and cities ended up with additional legislation, caselaw, and normative policies that made coerced treatment (including outpatient treatment) much more difficult.

amadeuspagel 3y ago

Compelled vaccination — forcing people to endure the pain of a needle and a few hours of feeling sore in their arm — is indeed completely different from locking people up in mental institutions for decades.

gretch 3y ago
This is a strawman - no one is complaining about the pain of the stab. It’s 100% the juice inside the syringe. This is the CDC site on the history of vaccine incidents: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.... Bad things can and do happen and it doesn’t do any good to pretend they don’t. Of course the reward is far worth the risk with modern science, but some people are still afraid of shit like this.
baremetal 3y ago
[flagged]
- sgath92 3y ago
  Vaccinations /= medical experimentation. Are you suggesting we as a species should still be being ravished by the scourge of smallpox?
- thebooktocome 3y ago
  The Nuremberg Code is about medical experimentation, not vaccination programs. The Nuremberg Code is not really relevant to modern medical ethics, or even to the history of medical ethics--its authors plagiarized [1] half of it from the 1931 Guidelines for Human Experimentation [2]. The relevant standard these days is the seventh revision of the Declaration of Helsinki, by the World Medical Association. No, the use of COVID-19 vaccines was not "experimental" [3]: > COVID-19 vaccines used in practice and involved in vaccination mandates are either authorized or fully approved by national regulatory authorities. Hence, they are not experimental and not part of research, and thus not covered by the Nuremberg Code. Taking approved medicines prescribed or used as a matter of regular medical or public health practice does not constitute an experiment or research in any common understandings of the terms. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3121268/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3121268/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_human_subject_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_human_subject_r... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10127050/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10127050/