[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

measles is a highly contagious disease

I remember before 9-11 it was like "oh, Timmy has measles, poor thing, get well soon, drink extra fluids, watch the Cartoon Network".

Now it's all "Oh my gaaaaad, Timmy has measles. He's an undercover sleeper cell al-Qaeda operative trying to destroy our freedom through highly contagious childhood diseases!!!"

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

I remember before 9-11 it was like "oh, Timmy has measles, poor thing, get well soon, drink extra fluids, watch the Cartoon Network".

Now it's all "Oh my gaaaaad, Timmy has measles. He's an undercover sleeper cell al-Qaeda operative trying to destroy our freedom through highly contagious childhood diseases!!!"

:child sneezes:

Parents: CODE RED! REPEAT CODE RED! OH GOD, ITS THE END OF DAYS! RUN TO THE BOMB SHELTER WITH THE SHOTGUN AND CAMPBELL SOUP! DEAR GOD, ITS ALL COMING TO AN END! AUGHHHH!

[MossadConspiracy]

measles kills hundreds of thousands of kids per year

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

measles kills hundreds of thousands of kids per year

So does terrorism. That doesn't mean you can take away the basic rights of people away. Not letting kids who aren't immunized into public schools or preventing immigrants from naturalizing are completely different from forcing people to get immunized with the barrel of a gun at their heads and attack dogs. The objective of the law might be praiseworthy but the manner in which it is executed might violate ethical and legal norms.

Also, science is not a source of ethics or law.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

measles kills hundreds of thousands of kids per year

So does smoking, fatty foods and alcohol. Are we going to force people to not consume those things at gunpoint?

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

So does smoking, fatty foods and alcohol. Are we going to force people to not consume those things at gunpoint?

Are we going to force gunpointers at food point?

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Are we going to force gunpointers at food point?

What if the fat people try to eat the gunmen?

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

What if the fat people try to eat the gunmen?

We'll have to immunize people against being fat then.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

We'll have to immunize people against being fat then.

At gunpoint, presumably.

[Timbit]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Like I said, I don't think this is an issue of science v. religion. Its an issue of government intrusion into the privacy zone that is normally protected by the Constitution (with certain exceptions).

The government can't regulate sexual behavior just because sexual diseases are rampant without a very strong reason (such as a highly contagious disease).

Its an issue of privacy versus public safety.

What?
Yeah, I agree with you. I'm asking why these people are refusign to get their kids vaccinated in the first place though. I missed that part. Is it against their religion?

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Whether they have something against medicine or not, it should be their choice to put their kids' health at risk. I mean, c'mon, it's supposed to be a free country. If someone wants to put their baby in a blender well... uh... okay, like I said before... bring out the dogs.

[jinnzaman]

Like I said, I think it might be the fact that they used weapons to intimidate people. Its kind of like "Yes, I only have $1.25 in lunch money, but I sure as hell ain't giving it to you, Mr. Bully"

[Timbit]

Right, well... it's a stand against the government's violence now, but what was it originally?

I've never heard of anybody before who didn't want their kid to get vaccinated. I know Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions and I was wondering if this is similar.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

So does terrorism. That doesn't mean you can take away the basic rights of people away. Not letting kids who aren't immunized into public schools or preventing immigrants from naturalizing are completely different from forcing people to get immunized with the barrel of a gun at their heads and attack dogs. The objective of the law might be praiseworthy but the manner in which it is executed might violate ethical and legal norms.

Also, science is not a source of ethics or law.

salam

i dont care about the attack dogs and guns and all that other nonsense, obviously those actions are not valid or legal public health policies (if they really happened that way, and they probably didnt). I doubt a policy of forced immunization could hold up in court. And there doesnt seem to be a public health justification for it.

you missed my point because i wasnt explicit enough in making it. You said that the government has no right to regulate risky sexual behavior except in cases where there is a highly contagious disease that can be spread through sexual practices. In fact this isnt true, but lets assume that it is. By that measure the government can also take action to protect people from being dumb and getting their children infected with measles or h influenzae and then having them run around infecting other kids. Its just an analogy drawn from the point you made, I dont actually support forced immunization.

Patient autonomy is something that has been drilled into all of our heads, nobody in healthcare needs a lecture on it. But that doesnt change the fact that these people are ignorant, foolish, and vain.

One last point. I dont support mandatory immunizations because in most cases it is only the idiots and their unimmunized children who become infected during outbreaks, so it isnt society's problem. However, I think you need to be reminded that public health services do have the right to sequester people against their will, to force people to take medication even though they may refuse, to impound and destroy property, to forbid business owners from doing business, to freeze and reverse the immigration process of new arrivals, and so forth. In most cases they dont even need court orders to do it, although everything they do is of course subject to retrospective review by the courts. There are many conditions placed on these powers, but they do exist and they can be exercised and have been

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Timbit

What?
Yeah, I agree with you. I'm asking why these people are refusign to get their kids vaccinated in the first place though. I missed that part. Is it against their religion?

no it has nothing to do with religion as far as I know

its usually because they are ignorant and believe some dumb myths regarding vaccination. Usually they have to be rich and stupid, or isolated wackos, because these vaccines are required for children to go to school and the only way to have unvaccinated kids is to be able to homeschool them

Today one of the doctors i work with was telling me about how this dumb woman from manhattan turned her son into a braindead vegetable because she didnt have him vaccinated and he got epiglottitis and suffocated

[Timbit]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

no it has nothing to do with religion as far as I know

its usually because they are ignorant and believe some dumb myths regarding vaccination. Usually they have to be rich and stupid, or isolated wackos, because these vaccines are required for children to go to school and the only way to have unvaccinated kids is to be able to homeschool them

Today one of the doctors i work with was telling me about how this dumb woman from manhattan turned her son into a braindead vegetable because she didnt have him vaccinated and he got epiglottitis and suffocated

Well, then they're just dumbasses who're endangering their kids' health.

Getting them to get their kids vaccinated at gunpoint and threatening them with attack dogs isn't the answer, of course, but they should be held responsible somehow. Fines and prison terms? Taking the kids away from them? I dunno.