nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Individual liberty VS benefiting society

steddyeddy

Some of you might be aware of the tragic story of the Ashkenazi Jews and Tay-Sach's disease. These sub population of Jews were disproportionally affected by a horrible metabolic disease called Tay Sachs disease. The cause of the disease was a recessive gene coding for an enzyme called hexosaminidase. Large proportions of these Jews carried the recessive gene causing this disease. Eventually the community instituted genetic screening of couples who wanted to get married. If both people carried the gene (it's recessive meaning you need to inherit both genes to acquire the disease) you were advised not to get married. This was voluntary but couples who disobeyed this were often shunned.

The effect of this were phenomenal. The disease was nearly eradicated in the population. My question is should the right to individual liberty outweigh the gain to society.

This applies to questions like should vaccines be a legal requirement (measles is coming back in America) and any other personal liberties like the right to receive a better education than others.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

steddyeddy

Turtwig wrote: »

That's completely OTT. opposing mandatory vaccination doesn't make you anti child protection.

How is rejecting a law that protects children's health not anti child protection?

Turtwig

steddyeddy wrote: »

How is rejecting a law that protects children's health not anti child protection?

Opposing one thing doesn't make you anti all things. If a liberal supported one conservative value it doesn't make them conservative and vice versa.

Capt'n Midnight

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I'm not anti-vaccine.

Sidenote: AFAIK, nobody post-eradication has been vaccinated against smallpox?

One of the main reasons the US financed much of the global fight against smallpox was because they realised it in the long term it was cheaper than having to keep vaccinating and treating US citizens.

Yes CDC and the Russian equivalent have samples and suspect stuff has been found in old medical files, it you think about such things you won't sleep at night.

There's also stuff like Ebola , AIDS and so on, so yes there are resevoirs out there. And of course there is flu a version of which killed millions in 1918. People just have to understand that vaccines are the best defence against some pretty nasty viral infections, in fact for many there is no cure.

jank

steddyeddy wrote: »

Some of you might be aware of the tragic story of the Ashkenazi Jews and Tay-Sach's disease. These sub population of Jews were disproportionally affected by a horrible metabolic disease called Tay Sachs disease. The cause of the disease was a recessive gene coding for an enzyme called hexosaminidase. Large proportions of these Jews carried the recessive gene causing this disease. Eventually the community instituted genetic screening of couples who wanted to get married. If both people carried the gene (it's recessive meaning you need to inherit both genes to acquire the disease) you were advised not to get married. This was voluntary but couples who disobeyed this were often shunned.

The effect of this were phenomenal. The disease was nearly eradicated in the population. My question is should the right to individual liberty outweigh the gain to society.

This applies to questions like should vaccines be a legal requirement (measles is coming back in America) and any other personal liberties like the right to receive a better education than others.

Yes, of course. Take away Individual Liberty the quick road to totalitarianism ala USSR and the Third Reich will soon be reached. Note, the couples were not banned in marrying each other.

Egginacup

steddyeddy wrote: »

Some of you might be aware of the tragic story of the Ashkenazi Jews and Tay-Sach's disease. These sub population of Jews were disproportionally affected by a horrible metabolic disease called Tay Sachs disease. The cause of the disease was a recessive gene coding for an enzyme called hexosaminidase. Large proportions of these Jews carried the recessive gene causing this disease. Eventually the community instituted genetic screening of couples who wanted to get married. If both people carried the gene (it's recessive meaning you need to inherit both genes to acquire the disease) you were advised not to get married. This was voluntary but couples who disobeyed this were often shunned.

The effect of this were phenomenal. The disease was nearly eradicated in the population. My question is should the right to individual liberty outweigh the gain to society.

This applies to questions like should vaccines be a legal requirement (measles is coming back in America) and any other personal liberties like the right to receive a better education than others.

People with a religious belief are more susceptible to a condtion ?

jank

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well then you totally disagree with making laws that protect children.

And it starts....

biko

Your OP is too vague and wide so I'll just respond to the initial statement:
I think the jews came with a pretty good solution to their problem. It fought the disease the best way they could at the time.

kowloon

I wouldn't necessarily support forced vaccination but schools should be allowed to expel an un-vaccinated child or refuse them a place unless they have a valid medical reason for not having their vaccinations. Schools are breeding grounds for all sorts of nasties, it's not fair to the staff and pupils to introduce more risk.

Turtwig

biko wrote: »

Your OP is too vague and wide so I'll just respond to the initial statement:
I think the jews came with a pretty good solution to their problem. It fought the disease the best way they could at the time.

I don't think you should mention Jews and solution in the one sentence anne frankly I shouldn't have either.

Amirani

It's a good thread OP. I find it quite difficult to come out strongly on either side here. I'm comprehensively pro-vaccination, but the idea of forced vaccination doesn't really sit too well with me.

I think it's fair to expect that children who aren't vaccinated are excluded from the public school system (though this in itself is unfair to the child). I think vaccination should probably be optional (though ardently promoted and encouraged) until the point where it becomes apparent that the number of abstentions are at too high a risk level or if the disease is dangerous enough. And by promoted and encouraged, I mean made particularly difficult to reject - mandatory renewal of the position on a yearly or half yearly basis in which the parent has to prove they've educated themselves on the matter and fully outline their reasoning for abstention.

I would likely support a mandatory vaccination program for measles in the US at present.

Capt'n Midnight

Egginacup wrote: »

People with a religious belief are more susceptible to a condtion ?

Nope.

Groups with small breeding pools are.

There's people of Indian descent in South Africa with no collar bones.

wendell borton

If your decisions have the potential to cause harm to others then they are no longer personal. The benefits of vaccination far out way any disadvantage, it has saved more lives than other medical advancement.

[Deleted User]

The other problem with a law like that, is that *anything* can be passed then "why do you hate children??" - whether it's actually for the children or not.
Govt have a habit of saying they'll do stuff like prop up the pubs in their manifesto - then when they come to implement that, they pretend it's "for the health of the youth".
Vaccines might be clear cut but I still don't think it should be punishable by law

Capt'n Midnight

bluewolf wrote: »

Vaccines might be clear cut but I still don't think it should be punishable by law

We're only talking about effective vaccines for notifiable diseases. You know the ones that are already in our legislation.
S.I. No. 452/2011 - Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Regulations 2011.

It's not that long ago that people with contagious diseases were quarantined in sanatoriums for as long as they were contagious. In the case of TB this was pretty much the rest of your life.

We live in a golden age of medicine but until very recently it looked like we'd loose effective antibiotics forever.

It's still early days but for a long time it was looking like we were returning to a world where an infected paper cut was pretty much a death sentence with amputation being the main treatment.

And that's the context you have to have at the back of your mind when thinking about some health issues. There are a lot of things out there that could undermine the health system, some political, some economic, some biological like SARS or an airborne Ebola or a new Influenza or multi drug resistant TB. Due to global warming malaria is making a comeback in Southern Europe.
Some vaccines can mean that you remove a public health risk forever, it's kinda a no-brainer amongst economists and health workers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We're only talking about effective vaccines for notifiable diseases. You know the ones that are already in our legislation.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about tbh
Even in the first post about vaccines he's already gone off about education as well

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well then you totally disagree with making laws that protect children.

steddyeddy wrote: »

and any other personal liberties like the right to receive a better education than others.

steddyeddy

bluewolf wrote: »

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about tbh
Even in the first post about vaccines he's already gone off about education as well

Well my OP related to individual liberties negatively impacting on society.

[Deleted User]

Fair enough, but it's easy enough to see how quickly laws about vaccinations can be adapted to anything purporting to be for the children

steddyeddy

It's not just vaccinations. In Ireland we have a relatively incidence of children being born with Phenylketonuria (PKU) (1 in 4,500 births). This is a genetic disease whereby children are born without a function phenylalanine hydroxylase enzyme. This enzyme metabolises phenylalanine, an amino acid genrating another amino acid tyrosine.

This results in a build up of phenylalanine and symptoms like mental retardation and mood swings ect. This is common in Ireland so it's common for every new born to undergo to heel prick test. This determines if your child has PKU and phenylalanine sources can be eliminated from the diet.

Some parents actually went to court over the right to refuse this test on their child's behalf. They won and now they can refuse their child a test that could prevent that child developing mental retardation. Now if that child did have PKU I think that's pretty close to child abuse.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

bluewolf wrote: »

Fair enough, but it's easy enough to see how quickly laws about vaccinations can be adapted to anything purporting to be for the children

My positions on education are not based on equality believe it or not. Their not for the children either. Their based on a respect of education and a respect of merit.

20Cent

There is a shocking lack of scientific knowledge particularly amongst the extreme right wing libertarian types mostly found in the US. If they don't want to vaccinate their kids it is akin to child abuse. Parents have a responsibility to protect them. Diseases that have been almost eradicated returning because some dumbass thinks the guvment are injecting kids to control them and take thur gaans or some nonsense.

There should be legal recourse against such idiots putting their own and other kids lives in danger.

steddyeddy

20Cent wrote: »

There is a shocking lack of scientific knowledge particularly amongst the extreme right wing libertarian types mostly found in the US. If they don't want to vaccinate their kids it is akin to child abuse. Parents have a responsibility to protect them. Diseases that have been almost eradicated returning because some dumbass thinks the guvment are injecting kids to control them and take thur gaans or some nonsense.

There should be legal recourse against such idiots putting their own and other kids lives in danger.

Someone asked why is there so many left wing scientists. It's because the right wing generally don't want to understand this stuff.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

Don't forget Bill Maher.

Lefty's Glenn Beck.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How ever it started it's soon evolved into a right wing pass time.

steddyeddy

And lets not forget Andrew fecking Wakefield.

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

This is common in Ireland so it's common for every new born to undergo to heel prick test. This determines if your child has PKU and phenylalanine sources can be eliminated from the diet.

Some parents actually went to court over the right to refuse this test on their child's behalf. They won and now they can refuse their child a test that could prevent that child developing mental retardation. Now if that child did have PKU I think that's pretty close to child abuse.

Solution is simple.

If they want to gamble with their child's health then they have accept the cost of loosing the gamble. If they don't take out insurance to cater for supporting the child in the event than the state must recover all such costs from them.

And no they couldn't declare bankruptcy because at the very least they'd be "reckless trading" or some such by not having insurance.

There was a separate issue with the blood test , which was keeping a Named DNA sample. IHMO what should have been done was to completely anonymise all the samples. It could have given us accurate figures for many genetic diseases and so possibly save a fortune in future health costs, and save lives and suffering but the anti-vax campaign is pretty much about perpetuating pain.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Solution is simple.

If they want to gamble with their child's health then they have accept the cost of loosing the gamble. If they don't take out insurance to cater for supporting the child in the event than the state must recover all such costs from them.

And no they couldn't declare bankruptcy because at the very least they'd be "reckless trading" or some such by not having insurance.

There was a separate issue with the blood test , which was keeping a Named DNA sample. IHMO what should have been done was to completely anonymise all the samples. It could have given us accurate figures for many genetic diseases and so possibly save a fortune in future health costs, and save lives and suffering but the anti-vax campaign is pretty much about perpetuating pain.

Yes I would have concerns too about having my DNA of file but I would have no problem with anonymous sample being kept.