5 ms·

Informed consent is an essential pre-condition to providing immunization.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Informed consent is an essential pre-condition to providing immunization Why does the consent need to be collected individually? We don't even require collective sign off for the factory fumes we each breathe daily. It seems reasonable for a government to consent on behalf of its governed for something like public health.
- jakebasile 2y ago
  You may want to look into the Doctor's Trial at Nuremberg for why governments cannot be trusted to make decisions for citizens in the name of "public health".
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > may want to look into the Doctor's Trial at Nuremberg for why governments cannot be trusted to make decisions for citizens in the name of "public health" The Nuremberg trials are about why governments and people cannot be trusted, period. This isn't about trust. It's about what requires individual consent, and for what groups can consent collectively. When medicine is individually administered, best practice is informed consent. But when substances are collectively administered (or removed), and this ranges from water sanitation to fluoridation to mandated fortification to factory pollutants you get to breathe, we have deep precedents that say it's fine to ask the group together and skip individual consent. That doesn't mean this is fine. (The risk-reward seems skewed to the left when eradication of malaria-carrying species is on the table.) The argument is simply flawed. We simply do not get individual consent every time an artificial substance is introduced into peoples' bodies.
    - jakebasile 2y ago
      Just because consent is routinely violated doesn't make the consent violation at hand OK.
- Handprint4469 2y ago
  > It seems reasonable for a government to consent on behalf of its governed for something like public health. Does it? How can you guarantee that your government's interpretation of "public health" matches yours?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > How can you guarantee that your government's interpretation of "public health" matches yours? There are no guarantees in social systems. This is true for governing legitimacy as well as concepts like consent.
    - Handprint4469 2y ago
      Sure, being part of a democracy means I'm giving implicit consent for the government to do things like raise taxes. It does not mean I'm consenting to the government injecting whatever they want into my bloodstream.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > does not mean I'm consenting to the government injecting whatever they want into my bloodstream By precedent, it does. Your blood contains all kinds of artificial compounds, originally ingested or inhaled, that came out of regulated factories or government programmes. You have no say around whether you are exposed to these substances individually. In the case of inhalation, you have little to no control.
        Handprint4469 2y ago
        > By precedent, it does. Nope, it doesn't. The fact that I have those things in my blood does not mean I consented to them. But I'm surprised you'd give up your bodily integrity so easily. Do you trust the government that much? Or are you just resigned to it?
        2y ago
lifeformed 2y ago
Do people consent to getting malaria

> Informed consent is an essential pre-condition to providing immunization Why does the consent need to be collected individually? We don't even require collective sign off for the factory fumes we each breathe daily. It seems reasonable for a government to consent on behalf of its governed for something like public health.

jakebasile 2y ago
You may want to look into the Doctor's Trial at Nuremberg for why governments cannot be trusted to make decisions for citizens in the name of "public health".
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > may want to look into the Doctor's Trial at Nuremberg for why governments cannot be trusted to make decisions for citizens in the name of "public health" The Nuremberg trials are about why governments and people cannot be trusted, period. This isn't about trust. It's about what requires individual consent, and for what groups can consent collectively. When medicine is individually administered, best practice is informed consent. But when substances are collectively administered (or removed), and this ranges from water sanitation to fluoridation to mandated fortification to factory pollutants you get to breathe, we have deep precedents that say it's fine to ask the group together and skip individual consent. That doesn't mean this is fine. (The risk-reward seems skewed to the left when eradication of malaria-carrying species is on the table.) The argument is simply flawed. We simply do not get individual consent every time an artificial substance is introduced into peoples' bodies.
  - jakebasile 2y ago
    Just because consent is routinely violated doesn't make the consent violation at hand OK.
Handprint4469 2y ago
> It seems reasonable for a government to consent on behalf of its governed for something like public health. Does it? How can you guarantee that your government's interpretation of "public health" matches yours?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > How can you guarantee that your government's interpretation of "public health" matches yours? There are no guarantees in social systems. This is true for governing legitimacy as well as concepts like consent.
  - Handprint4469 2y ago
    Sure, being part of a democracy means I'm giving implicit consent for the government to do things like raise taxes. It does not mean I'm consenting to the government injecting whatever they want into my bloodstream.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > does not mean I'm consenting to the government injecting whatever they want into my bloodstream By precedent, it does. Your blood contains all kinds of artificial compounds, originally ingested or inhaled, that came out of regulated factories or government programmes. You have no say around whether you are exposed to these substances individually. In the case of inhalation, you have little to no control.
      - Handprint4469 2y ago
        > By precedent, it does. Nope, it doesn't. The fact that I have those things in my blood does not mean I consented to them. But I'm surprised you'd give up your bodily integrity so easily. Do you trust the government that much? Or are you just resigned to it?
        2y ago

lifeformed 2y ago

Do people consent to getting malaria