Vaccination and the erronous fear against it

[Raja]

Not entirely sure if there is an American equivalent, but I think the Mental Health Act in the UK allows for people with a mental disorder to be admitted, detained and treated without their consent either for their own health and safety or the safety of others. Assuming when you made the mental health comparison, you meant causing harm to someone else as opposed to the disorders being communicable.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kair,

Not my point. People suffering from severe psychological disorders have harmed other people because of their illness. Should people suffering from these disorders have the right to refuse medication given what could happen if they are not on medication?

The situation is not identical to vaccination but it is comperable. I'm curious about the broader implications of placing State sanction on those who choose not to vaccinate.

Fez,

Given the impact of unvaccinated children should the State look to that precident and force vaccinations? Some will raise hell if it does, it might be worth it.

[sologdin]

Another reminder of no matter what it is about, one has always to be wary of the extremism and ignorance of your own side,,,

For it can be easy more destructiv than any oppostion.

Because talk like this actually reinforces the position of the anti.

not seeing how this ad hominem sniping disguised as ersatz tactical analysis assists the discussion, as it is irrelevant to my point, which remains correct, and is otherwise an awful tactics: antisocial nihilists are not subject to persuasion. it is likewise hardly a sign of good faith or seriousness to suggest that my ethical equation of willful failure to immunize with sabotage and terrorism is 'more destructive' than actual opposition to immunization. yes. my words communicate pertussis to infants and thereby kill them. FFS.

scot--

your lines of cross examination will bear no fruits, as there is nothing analogous about your hypotheticals to willful failure to immunize. psychiatric disorders are not willfully acquired and do not communicate.

as for actual failure to treat medically (as compared to failure to immunize): we already zero claimants for disability benefits if they are non-compliant with medical treatment. am not particularly interested in opposing that rule.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

Someone has a severe psycholgical disorder, chooses not to treat it and as a result of choosing not to treat, kills people, and that isn't comparable to the vaccination situation, at all?

[sologdin]

scot--

if a person is sufficiently psychiatrically disabled to act on homicidal ideation, then the person aforesaid should be interdicted by the state as non compos mentis. any such person should be exculpated in any criminal matter as lacking the requisite mens rea, which means that "choosing not to treat" is not a significant way to describe their conduct.

should we assume that adults who willfully fail to immunize are similarly acting on psychotic homicidal ideation and thus should likewise be interdicted, with their offspring placed in secure locations as wards of the state? is that what you mean in terms of being comparable?

[Inigima]

Scot, repeating it is not an answer to criticism of your comments. Not to say this isn't sometimes a real problem, but solo has already given his reasons for his critique of your analogy. And may I point out that, by definition, someone with these problems has impaired judgment from their mental health disorder?

[Fez]

Fez,

Given the impact of unvaccinated children should the State look to that precident and force vaccinations? Some will raise hell if it does, it might be worth it.

Absolutely. I recognize that I'm more authoritarian than most on many issues. But, to me, protecting the public health is one of those foundational functions, along with functions like fighting fires, enforcing contracts, and providing national defense (for the feds), that should be no-question-about-it,-this-is-what-the-government-does things.

If there was legitimate expert debate as to how effective vaccinations were to public health, then we could have a public discussion about how wide-spread they should be and alter policy according, just like there is legitimate debate as to how effective various surviellance activities are to national defense. However, there is no legitimate debate about vaccinations, just scientific fact vs. willful idiots. As such, there should be no discussion (I mean, people can say what they want, first amendment and all that, but it should have absolutely no possible repercussions for anyone or anything), no optional-ness.

Mandatory vaccinations for everyone except those who can provide proof of a legitimate medical reason to not get them (allergies, compromised immune system, etc.).

And there should probably be a database of all such individuals, so that if there is an outbreak of any diseases we can issue temporary restraining orders against all of them from contact with infants/children (outside of family I suppose) who are not far enough along their vaccination schedule to be protected from the outbreak.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I suppose the problem is we have parents with full faculties choosing not to properly protect their children and other people's children. I also speculate that where the general public is put at risk by a person making such a decision, perhaps, the State should intervene and require immunization. It will raise a stink, but, it may be worh it.

The difficulty is getting politicians to make a choice they know will piss off a very vocal, if small, community.

[Ormond]

Not my point. People suffering from severe psychological disorders have harmed other people because of their illness. Should people suffering from these disorders have the right to refuse medication given what could happen if they are not on medication?

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa!

The HUGE majority of "people suffering from severe psychological disorders" have NOT "harmed other people because of their illness." The rate of violent crime among those diagnosed with psychiatric conditions is about the same as that among people who have not been diagnosed.

Those who "suffer from severe psychological disorders" are much more likely to harm themselves than others.

If you want to debate whether or not those rare cases where someone with a "severe psychological disorder" has caused harm to someone else and that harm has been linked to their particular manifestation of mental illness should result in a legal obligation to take medication, go right ahead. But that's not a perfect analogy to the vaccine situation because harm has already occurred.

[sologdin]

legitimate expert debate as to how effective vaccinations were to public health

absolutely. if the Neo-Hippie Institute for Legalization Studies publishes an essay in its house journal that promotes LSD as an effective immunization against HIV, H1N1, and the bubonic plague, we might forgive any resistance to attempts at enforcement.

[Fez]

legitimate expert debate as to how effective vaccinations were to public health

absolutely. if the Neo-Hippie Institute for Legalization Studies publishes an essay in its house journal that promotes LSD as an effective immunization against HIV, H1N1, and the bubonic plague, we might forgive any resistance to attempts at enforcement.

Not necessarily sure that such an organization could be characterized as 'legitimate' or 'expert.' Nor that a single essay or journal qualifies as 'debate.'

[sologdin]

you doubt the expertise of hippies vis-a-vis LSD?

but, yes, exactly. we don't have expertise or legitimate debate in the LSD hypothetical--just as the anti-vax people have nothing but discreditable quackery.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I've got to say, Scot, that the state legitimately uses its police and enforcement powers in all kinds of ways that offend my sense of what should be allowed way, way more than the state requiring parents to vaccinate their healthy children.

[Mish Windage]

Whenever I get my vac I always say "Well, if I didn't have it before, I Definitely have it now!" and they usually either give me a look of horror or just chuckle.

[Deedles]

Argh, argh. I was at an ante natal class this afternoon and the discussion was around peri natal treatment. In the hospital I intend attending intra muscular vitamin K is routinely given to all neonates. Someone wanted to know if there were preservatives in said injection and said they wouldn't consent to any preservatives being administered (I refrained from asking about salt and sugar). I'm guessing we have an anti vaxxer coming up shortly.

[TrackerNeil]

I've got to say, Scot, that the state legitimately uses its police and enforcement powers in all kinds of ways that offend my sense of what should be allowed way, way more than the state requiring parents to vaccinate their healthy children.

Word. If a vaccination requirement is government oppression then, please, oppress me.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

Yes. It mostly boils down to 'OMG THERE ARE CHEMICALS IN THERE!!!!!'

What are they putting in our kids' water?!? Will somebody please think of the children!?

[Mudguard]

If there was legitimate expert debate as to how effective vaccinations were to public health, then we could have a public discussion about how wide-spread they should be and alter policy according, just like there is legitimate debate as to how effective various surviellance activities are to national defense. However, there is no legitimate debate about vaccinations, just scientific fact vs. willful idiots. As such, there should be no discussion (I mean, people can say what they want, first amendment and all that, but it should have absolutely no possible repercussions for anyone or anything), no optional-ness.

Not all vaccines have a proven or known effectiveness at the time the vaccine is given. The biggest example is the yearly influenza vaccine, where we do not know efficacy of the vaccine at the time of delivery. The early estimate by the CDC for this year's influenza vaccine pegs efficacy at only 23%. I have no issue with making receiving a proven vaccine, like the measles vaccine, mandatory, but I wouldn't support mandatory influenza vaccination at this time.

[Swordfish]

Yeah, it was just an example. I just don't have the scientific background to refute them when they claim stuff like the article does. I feel like they're trying to convert me and it's hard to think of good rejoinders. Say "polio sucks" and they'll tell you that Dr. mercola said polio was a myth.

Arguing with someone who believes that polio is a myth is a waste of time. I wouldn't bother responding at all, because they are clearly beyond reason.

[Mudguard]

But of course that the health care system in SoCal is now burdened with treating a disease that under normal conditions would never have spread to dozens of people. This outbreak does not threaten humanity, no, but it's an entirely preventable strain on the doctors, nurses and hospitals, and that IMO is enough to warrant concern.

This is such a mark of privilege that it's staggering. We're spending money treating the children of fools who should know better and can afford to do better.

If we are doing a cost-benefit analysis, instead of using a bunch of resources trying to get the US from 90% to 100% vaccinated, which is not necessary to eradicate the disease from the world, we should divert more resources to providing the vaccine to developing countries that really need the vaccine. Millions still get the measles every year. Our 100 to 1000 cases a year in comparison is minuscule. I agree, the US is an extremely privileged country, but rather than worry about a relatively small outbreak here in the US, we should be looking at the bigger picture.