I think the conversation about ethics and 'deliberately influencing the human genome' is worthy of its own topic:

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/241010

Bushido,

Regarding mandatory inoculations, I see a strong argument for it, but at present my valuation of personal liberty and my distrust with the medical establishment shift the scale against mandatory inoculations (except, maybe, in extreme circumstances).

If the powers that be cannot convince a critical mass of the population to engage in voluntary inoculation, this is a symptom of a deeper problem.

Personally, I would rather live in a world that (a) has slightly higher levels of disease, but is working towards greater education of individuals, greater understandings of disease process, and respect for personal liberty, then (b) has lower disease levels, but the people are mindless sheep being forced by law to turn their bodies over to the control of a centralized authority (under the advice of the medical establishment).

Of course, each of those factors exists on a range of values. If the disease threat was high enough, I would change my mind. This is just my feeling at this time.

There is a deeper problem, much deeper.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stop_avn/


What if your baby caught a disease from a person who refused vaccination and died becuase of it?

New born babies are at risk, too young to get the shots and have it work for them, so anyone near them not vaccinated is a risk. Also if we get a wide enough population believing these nut jobs then we get large gaps in immunity, this causes a domino effect, its a real shame this is the cause of certain viruses we thought wiped out for coming back.

In a world of freedom, nut jobs and wacko's spouting anti science can influence large populations. How to handle this problem is very difficult. Its not just a matter of letting the idiots die out winning Darwin awards a long the way, they pose a risk to us all.

Yep, that is the essence of an ethical dilemma. How do you resolve the problem without creating some other problem that’s just as bad or worse.

How do you stop the nut jobs from convincing people that lies are truth? Remove all the nut jobs from the society? Maybe that would work. But then, wouldn’t someone who believed an obvious lie also be considered a nut job? So maybe the people who believe the nut jobs should also be removed from society. The obvious reductio ad absurdum of that is a society in which any sort of expression of any beliefs that could not be proven as factual via an accepted scientific method, would be prohibited. So maybe “letting the idiots die out winning Darwin awards a long the way” actually is the optimum solution.

Just thinking out loud again.

This is a hard question. If my baby caught a disease? This evokes strong emotions.... emotions which may guide me to a more appropriate organization of my values, or which may obscure the clarity of my thinking. I don't know what to say about that.


As far as the people who are lying to other people against vaccinations - maybe we need to improve our laws/enforcement regarding the presentation of information to the public. I certainly think we need to improve this in other areas - especially claims being made by the marketing departments of companies selling nutritional supplements and natural healing products/methods.

I am in agreement with you on the nature of liberty. Honestly, one of the better discussions I read on freedom was in Starship Troopers but it was omitted from the movie.

The crux of the discussion was what should an individual be able to do under the guise of freedom?

Can I build a nuclear bomb in my basement? If you are worried about my harming those who live around me, don't -- I have never had one go off yet nor had any toxic leaks. Still, I think you can see that the potential danger is staggering.

The central idea was that freedom does not mean that you can do whatever you wish. License is doing what you wish while avoiding the negative consequences of your actions (Plato talked about that a bit). Freedom focuses on responsibility. Do whatever you believe to be right; but whatever you do, you are responsible for. Good or bad.

You should be free to decide what medical procedures you (and your children) undergo, however you must accept responsibility for your actions. If your child gets sick and dies, you are responsible. If your child infects others, you must redress the situation.

I would imagine that if you did not inoculate your child and other children died from it it would be similar to other cases where death resulted from lack of prudent actions (neglect or disregard). Such as a parent throwing a party for their child's graduation where alcohol is served to minors. Even though it may not have been the parent's intent they are responsible. If a minor dies from alcohol poisoning, the parent will go to prison.

I would hope that most people would try to avoid the Utilitarian approach -- You are morally obligated to first do the action which leads to the most good for the most people and secondly to do the action which causes the least harm to the most people.

Great book! Great author. The only thing I remember about the movie was that it seemed to remind me of a colgate commercial, the way people were smiling in the beginning.



I used to believe that you should be allowed to aggregate the components in one place. I still have a huge issue with the banning of harmless behaviors because we are not successful in enforcing against the harmful behaviors.








But what about when you have a newborn who is too young to get the inoculation, and an adult who chose not to be inoculated, and carries a pathogen but is not adversely effected by it, and the adult infects your newborn while you guys were in line at the grocery store?

I think this leads to the argument for enforced inoculation.

Alright, now for the sake of argument, how should it be enforced?

Specifically, what should be done with people who refuse to be inoculated?

Should they be forcibly immobilized and administered the inoculation against their will?

Should they have something tattooed on them so that people can easily recognize and avoid them (which might also require forcible immobilization and administration.)

Or should we be “humane” about it and just isolate them from society – throw them in prison.

This type of question – as an argument – is, in my opinion, worse than useless.

It appeals to a stimulus-response mechanism (i.e. emotion) for an answer to an issue that requires reasoning, not knee-jerk reactions.

One might just as well argue against having busses by asking “What if your child were hit and killed by a bus?”

If the issue is to forward the survival of the race as a whole, then the survival of the race as a whole should be the primary concern, not the unreasoned reactions of a single individual.

Not only that, but it the implication of guilt (i.e. the carrier is responsible for the death because he infected the baby) does not take into account any responsibility of the parent for the situation. Couldn’t we just as well take the completely reverse view? Instead of the carrier being responsible for infecting the baby, couldn’t we just as well say that the parent was guilty of exposing their child to an environment where the child might be infected? (That sounds vey similar to some of the idiotic "child abuse" cases that have been filed and - won in recent years.

And finally, when you extrapolate out the other implications of this, it is very easy to arrive at a point where the carrier is guilty of murder in the first degree because he made the premeditated decision not to be inoculated. SO should we then execute the carrier for murder? And then maybe we should just execute anyone who refuses inoculation.

Just trying to broaden the perspective here because I feel that the above quoted question is a highly illogical “argument”.

This doesn't directly answer your question, but: for myself, I would never voluntarily undergo a TB unless I actually thought I had TB. I'm sure the TB proteins or whatever they are that they inject are harmless, but I see no need to have extra crap injected in my body if I don't have symptoms.

Yet, a while back, in order to apply for a job I had to show documentation that I was tested TB free. I think this is wise, because of the way the position interacted with the public, and as a member of the public I would like to know that people in that position don't have TB. In any case, I chose to do something I would otherwise not do, in order to apply.

Coming back to your question - in the case of adult inoculations, what if they made it a prerequisite for getting/renewing a drivers license/state ID? No one gets strapped down, but you are effectively 'forced'.

For child inoculations - it can be made prerequisite for going to public school, and for participating at pools and camps. They could make it a requirement for day care licensing that the day care only accept those with inoculations. Its possible the government could even forbid private pools/camps/gathering places from allowing non-inoculated people from participating. Again, no one is strapped down, its almost the same result.

In New York it is required that children be immunized before they will be allowed to attend school. If you enter the system and have not been immunized, you will be barred from school until you comply.

What if the carrier was unable to drive for some other reason? Blindness, or some other disability. Or what about in New York city, where, I am told, a large percentage of the population does not drive at all?

In truth, my question was rhetorical – not really intended as a request for a solution, but more to invite further examination into all the ramifications of any “solution” and what side-effects it might have.

Apparently you didn’t know this, but at least one of these (requiring proof of inoculations before entering school) is already being done in some states.

So now the issue has evolved into a political one, with all the inherent insanity that implies. Which is exactly what I, personally, am fighting against. To just hand over the survival of the race (or anything else, for that matter) into the hands of a political system – of any kind – is, in my opinion, abdicating responsibility at best, and racial suicide at worst.

Speaking for myself, and myself only, I'd only accept those voluntary immunizations that I choose to accept.

I'd refuse to accpet involuntary immunization, given a choice, and would only accept involuntary immunization under duress or force.

The gist of the matter really -- as has been correctly noted somewhere above -- is that Freedom has to do with the Responsibility:
-----if you want your freedom respected, you better take the responsibility of respecting that of others'.---------

*** If the general inoculation has been announced, and mr.X refuses to be inoculated, on the grounds of his personal freedoms might be deprived, then the risk he represents for the rest of society (possibly infecting others) outweighs his personal rights for freedom!!! Thus, the society has to protect its members from mr.X's freedom -- by depriving him of some of his freedoms, i.e. restricting his access to the public places... *** (that is, uless one isn't responsible enough (i.e. disrespectful of others') to stay away from the public places...

I, certainly, would not want to work at the place which deprives my freedom (working in a desease-free environment) while respecting my fellow co-worker's freedom (refusing inoculation).

*** SOCIETY'S/GROUP'S WELFARE OUTWEIGHS *ANY* PERSONAL FREEDOMS ***

P.S. Unfortunately, the Free Society affords its members with huge responsibility of respecting the freedom of others' -- while some of the society's members just don't give a *** about!

I don't think I can roll with that.

Yeah, you're lucky because the society gives you the freedom to exercise your opinion!

_______________WHO CARES?________________
The same society might (and WILL) restrict your freedom instantly, if you refuse respecting that of others'!!!

That is a commonly held belief. So common as to be cliche. What it actually results in is a justification for any action at all - as long as it is sanctioned by the majority. It is the exact same reasoning Hitler used for justifying his "racial cleansing".

I'm not saying it's wrong or invalid as a general rule. Just that it has it's inherent problems when taken as an absolute - not the least of which is answering the question "Who decides what constitues 'group welfare'?" The majority? Supposing that a vote is taken to detemine what should be done about gene-defects, and the majority of the group thinks that the group's welfare would be best served by eliminating the defectives? That same general line of questioning could be extrapolated out to the point where subsequent votes ended up in eliminating more and more group members, to the point where there are not enough members left to maintain the group's viability.

And what if the votes came out exactly even? There is no majority, so how could you determine what was in the best interests of the group's welfare?

Also, do you consider that two people is enough to constitue a group? If so, how would you apply that group welfare rule to any situation in a group of two?

I am not really following you.



This sounds like you are referring to prison if I commit a crime. My freedom doesn't mean that I can do whatever I please. There are rules in place that are required to ensure liberty for all. By breaking these rules you are declaring that you are unwilling to participate in the social contract... placing you outside the society.

This is not the same thing as stating that the welfare of society supersedes the freedom of the individual. If I received a notice in the mail tomorrow stating that the United States will require more doctors in the next 20 years and I am to report to medical school on the first of the month, I would throw it away.

I choose not to be a doctor regardless of the needs of society.

Wow, a lot is going on here.

Massage said:


Good, that is a broad subject worthy of its own thread.

Sky said:


There really are people who have no morals, and such individuals believe that the fulfillment of his or her own desires are all that matters. No morals or ethical standards ever get in their way because none truly exist. In our society and in many others as well, these people are called psychopaths.

Sky, there is a just and right moral standard that can be applied and if nothing else can be agreed on, then at least this one thing can—no human has the right to unjustly deprive another viable human of their life.

That one standard becomes the beginning point for all other standard rights of a human—what others might you add? Maybe this one - no human has the right to unjustly and knowingly inflict physical harm to another? But what causes physical harm? Torture maybe? There might also be a standard moral standard which prevents any person(s) from owning another human, or maybe a moral which prohibits a person or group from preventing another the right to sustain his or her own life through legal means.
Think about it, these really are morals that could be standardized for all humanity.


Poison said:


This is too broadly stated for if an individual chose to create a weapon in an area where others could be harmed and it happened, in what manner would you hold the maker of the weapon ‘responsible’ if a hundred people died and many more were injured? When one persons behavior can potentially destroy the lives of many, then laws which may hamper the freedom of that one individual are just.

That brings me to the inoculation topic.
When the polio vaccine was created, it was to prevent the disease. It was so effective it virtually wiped out or eradicated the disease, it could be found no where in the world except in two laboratories. The vaccine continued to be mandatory for a long time, just in case it lurked somewhere in the world, and then it continued just in case one of the lab samples was ever used as a threatening weapon. If we can eradicate a known and potentially fatal disease through mass inoculation, is it not worth some lives in the process?

Also there is the problem that many of the diseases which inoculations prevent can become immune to any of the treatments we have for them and the best defense is still inoculation. Diseases can also mutate if they continually in circulation in humans and then the inoculations which made most of the worlds population safe, become ineffective.

So we have a scenario, we don’t lie because its wrong to do so. If everyone lied no one could be trusted but we do trust people because it is wrong to lie and so sometimes the lier gets away with something. If a person refuses to be inoculated against disease, it is most likely that they do not fear getting the disease because they trust that others have been inoculated and the odds of getting the disease are very small. But what if everyone stopped getting inoculated? I take my chances with inoculations, because it is right to protect myself, my child and in so doing, I have protected others. If an inoculation had existed during one of the major outbreaks of small-pox, how many people do you thing would have taken the inoculation even knowing they had one in a million chance of dying from it? When you suffering and death all around you and you are offered a million to one chance of escaping it, would you take it?

We are responsible for our behavior, but if you do not get inoculated and become the carrier of a disease which mutates in YOUR body, and millions die because you refused to be inoculated, are you responsible? How do you pay for your irresponsibility, what could society do to you that would begin to be a punishment?

QUOTE:
*** SOCIETY'S/GROUP'S WELFARE OUTWEIGHS *ANY* PERSONAL FREEDOMS! ***

Sky wrote:


Poison Responded:


So – might there be yet ANOTHER standard human moral something like,

All humans have the right to freely seek livelihood and pursue happiness as long as it does not impede others right to do the same. ?

Keep writing, maybe we’ll find some more human moral standards…