rispondi a questa domanda

dibattito Domanda

Vaccines and their application?

Vaccines do have a bit of controversy behind them, mainly due to misinformation. Following an articolo published in The Lancet (and later retracted, following an investigation), many believe that vaccines cause autism, despite a complete dearth of experimental evidence. The only evidence that has come out since even close to supporting it is that some vaccines can cause irritation in autistic patients, making their symptoms appear più dramatic, but that's hardly the same.

Still, most people agree that vaccines are essential and reasonable, even in the religious community. They prevent dangerous viral and bacterial diseases, ones that plague many other countries.

However, the issue remains that many refuse to get their children vaccinated, and as a result, put themselves and others at risk. The incidence of measles, mumps and rubella have balooned dramatically in the last couple of decades, mainly due to fear of autism. The toll isn't limited to them. The disease spreads to infants under the age of two, who cannot receive the MMR vaccine due to their weak immune systems. The same is true of the elderly.

Hence, I have devised a solution, though not one many have agreed with. My solution is to make vaccination with the MMR vaccine mandatory. One could easily expand this to other vaccines (DTaP [Diptheria, Tetanus and Pertussis] and HPV come to mind), but I'll stick with MMR alone. Funding for these would be covered da the state, but everyone who can would be required to receive it. For those who deign not to, a fee would be applied, and the proceeds from that fee would go to treating any outbreaks of the disease.

I'm interested to hear other peoples' perspectives on this. I realize it's a difficult sposta to make, especially considering the freedoms that are Lost as a result, but considering that this is an issue that extends well beyond the person making the choice not to get the vaccine, I feel that the loss is a reasonable price to pay.
 whiteflame55 posted più di un anno fa
next question »

dibattito Risposte

Chaann94 said:
I'm not sure if I understood what te detto but I believe we already have that in Holland XD

and I agree with you, da the way.

I mean, vaccines have saved many lives. In fact, there was one city in Holland which was orthodox reformed. They refused to vaccinate and then the entire town got Poliomyelitis.

Also, I get flu shots every anno because otherwise if I'd get the flu I could die of short breath in my sleep(almost happened once, I have asthma and with the flu, I can't breathe) and I don't have any form o authism o any weird side effects.
select as best answer
posted più di un anno fa 
*
I did not know that Holland implements a similar system! That's really interesting, I'll have to do some digging and find out più about it. Yeah, the autism thing is completely bunk. It originally came from the fact that many vaccines were kept fresh in mercury (don't know why), but even then it wasn't true.
whiteflame55 posted più di un anno fa
*
In Holland vaccinations are not mandatory, they are however payed for da the state.
Sappp posted più di un anno fa
*
Ah, still an improvement.
whiteflame55 posted più di un anno fa
bri-marie said:
It's a tricky situation. On the one hand, is it morally correct for the government to force people to receive medical treatments? And, if so, where does the line become drawn? Can the government mandate that people with AIDS become sterilized? People with autism and other such diseases?

And then what is a disease? Is homosexuality a disease? There are people advocating for transgender people to be sterilized. Is that okay? It's a slippery slope. I'm not sure where I stand on forcing everyone to be vaccinated. Yes, it'd dangerous for other people, but, again, that slope is one the government has proven to slide down when dato the chance.
select as best answer
posted più di un anno fa 
*
It is tricky, though I don't believe it's a slippery slope. A system could easily be implemented whereby only a group of leading health care professionals make the decisions on what should and should not be vaccinated against. più importantly, the standard's only being set for vaccines. Sterilization takes it a massive step further, as does the process of choosing what is and isn't a disease. It's a simple standard: if it's a virus o bacterium and we have a vaccine for it, that vaccine could be made mandatory (though with the the standard I set, the MMR vaccine is the only mandatory one). The issue, as te pointed out, is enforcing vaccination. People either must invia to getting a needle in their vein o pay a fine. That can be viewed as problematic da itself.
whiteflame55 posted più di un anno fa
dreamfields said:
I think it's a matter of choice. If it is avaialable to all, I would assume that only those who were not vaccinated would get the disease. In that case they would orso the responsibility of thier choices. The ethical domanda might be whether o not the government would have to pick up the bill for medical care for the poor & uninsured.
select as best answer
posted più di un anno fa 
*
The problem I have with your answer here is that it ignores the realities of how a vaccine affects a dato population. Every person without a vaccine is capable of contracting a dato disease. The trouble is that not everyone can get the vaccine (i.e. infants, the elderly, and those with weak immune systems). Everyone who deigns not to get a vaccine puts all of these people at higher risk, not just themselves. The responsibility in this case isn't borne da one individual, but rather, da many. There is, however, the ethical domanda of picking up the bill, as te say, though I'd argue that the safety from a return to a terrible epidemic is enough of a reason to ignore the cost.
whiteflame55 posted più di un anno fa
*
"whiteflame" If te look at what i said, I did preface with, "If it is available to all." So I was assuming a best case senerio.
dreamfields posted più di un anno fa
*
It really is a domanda of public good vs. personal liberty, as te said. Unfortunately, as te expressed with the quarantine option, most of our resonse to outbreaks is late in the game, and a lot of people end up infected in any instance. Vaccines are one of the few ways to at least partially prevent that.
whiteflame55 posted più di un anno fa
coriann said:
it's sad that they irritate those poor autistic children, anyway, the benefits are better than the doubts ^ ^ everyone should "want" to but, um, autistic children should have a choice, i know about the free will thing that people think everyone should have, but, if people could be drafted into a war then i don't see how this shouldn't be mandatory, like children's education and such. i like your idea Marc, it seems to want to do più good than harm :P
select as best answer
posted più di un anno fa 
*
Well, the autism problem I mentioned can be dealt with, so that's not too big of an issue.
whiteflame55 posted più di un anno fa
next question »