[Khairan]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Doctors and government's aren't perfect and thats why we have checks against them and the preservation of individual rights. These rights can be trumped, but only in absolutely necessary situations. I'm not disagreeing that immunization is important, but to invade the privacy of the home at the barrel of the gun with attack dogs is a violation of the fundamental liberties.

What I'm interested in is how do we define (from the state's perspective) under what circumstances people can be forced to do things against their will and when they cannot? Is there a unifying philosophy behind this, or are the laws somewhat slipshod in that they don't all follow the same logic?

I've tried to give the medical perspective above, and I find the rules that govern the giving and taking of consent to be rational, logical, and consistent. However, I am aware that the state and public health practitioners have powers that doctors do not in situations where there is a concern of "protecting the public interest."

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Khairan

What I'm interested in is how do we define (from the state's perspective) under what circumstances people can be forced to do things against their will and when they cannot? Is there a unifying philosophy behind this, or are the laws somewhat slipshod in that they don't all follow the same logic?

I've tried to give the medical perspective above, and I find the rules that govern the giving and taking of consent to be rational, logical, and consistent. However, I am aware that the state and public health practitioners have powers that doctors do not in situations where there is a concern of "protecting the public interest."

There's various theories of the state infringing upon the rights of indivdiuals, the two biggest ethical theories are utilitarianism and deontology. Utilitarianism focuses more on communal efficiency whereas deontology focuses on the preservation of natural rights (that are deduced by reason). Each ethical theory taken to its logical extreme results in transgressions of rights. For example, instituting the death penalty for drunk driving might have the "utilitarian" effect of eliminating drunk driving, but the punishment might be greater than the crime. On the other hand, if humans are deemed rational agents, under deontology, they can be punished for their irrational decisions, even if that involves instituting the death penalty. Both of these theories are used by Courts to develop public policy arguments in favor of particular laws. They're usually fairly well balanced. These two philosophical theories also govern bioethics as well.

In terms of constitutional law, the general rule is that when the state infringes upon a fundamental right, it must have a compelling interest in doing so and no less restrictive alternative, among other things.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

suck at quoting movie lines about doctors? I didn't think it was possible to suck at copying and pasting, but then again, you are mighty and know everything so i shall submit to your expert opinion.

you need a mentor to help you, but i think theres potential

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Again, thats not the issue. I already said that my post was concerning the original topic and the thread title, not whatever medical issue you wanna take up with the parents. My problem is your paternalistic attitude to human beings whose opinions you disagree with. Calling them dumbasses, communists, yuppies, isn't the mark of respect. If you don't want to be called a scumbag, then maybe you should treat other people nicely, especially people who are your patients, Mr.Godcomplex.

The disagreement isnt about opinions, if it was I would respect them. Since it is about facts and science and they are ignorant of the facts yet insist on endangering the lives of children based on that ignorance, then I feel that it is only reasonable to consider them stupid communist yuppies, which is what they are.

Again, to sum that up: There is a difference between opinions and facts. Those who believe in myths against a mountain of scientific evidence and kill their kids because of it are idiots. They do kill their kids, again these are potentially lethal diseases and children die from them in the USA every year due to the stupidity of their parents.

If they were feeding their children lead paint chips i'm sure there would be no disagreement about how stupid they are (their children would be taken from them). Yet epiglottitis and polio and hep b are much worse and we're supposed to respect their opinion that subjecting their kids to the risk of these diseases is a smart thing to do.

We have to accept their right to make foolish choices, we arent required or expected to respect their view

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

There are a thousand threats against society but it doesn't always authorize fascist actions by the state. Parents don't always get their kids immunized and preventing these kids from coming to public schools has been fairly effective at preventing the spread of this 'highly communicable disease'. The point is that the issue is more complicated then you're making it out to be and you have the gall to go around and call other people dumbasses when you're coming off as pretty ignorant yourself.

Parents who opt out of having their kids vaccinated are ignorant, foolish, and are subjecting their children to unnecessary risks. In my view that makes them idiots. That is a point I have made repeatedly in this topic. If you want to argue that point, fine. Explain to me why you think parents who opt out of vaccination are NOT idiots, then we can discuss it.

If you want to talk about fascist actions by the state, that is a seperate and possibly related topic, but i'm really not interested in discussing it with you. I just dont care. I already told you that I agree with you about forced vaccinations being wrong. Its wrong to force treatment on people who dont want it except in a very narrow set of exceptions, and this isnt one of them. These actions in Maryland by the authorities were incorrect, foolish, perhaps illegal, medically unjustifiable. Theres nothing else for me to say about it

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Doctors and government's aren't perfect and thats why we have checks against them and the preservation of individual rights. These rights can be trumped, but only in absolutely necessary situations. I'm not disagreeing that immunization is important, but to invade the privacy of the home at the barrel of the gun with attack dogs is a violation of the fundamental liberties.

i dont think any homes were invaded, but perhaps they were. Anyway, I agree with the point you are making. I dont understand why you are making it, I've agreed with it from the beginning.

There are two seperate things here.

1. It is wrong for the government to force children to be vaccinated against their parents' will
2. Parents who do not vaccinate their kids are ignorant, misinformed, vain, and are idiots (among other things). However, they have the right to make that decision.

I agree with both of those statements, I dont understand why you continue to assume that I only agree with one

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Khairan

What I'm interested in is how do we define (from the state's perspective) under what circumstances people can be forced to do things against their will and when they cannot? Is there a unifying philosophy behind this, or are the laws somewhat slipshod in that they don't all follow the same logic?

I've tried to give the medical perspective above, and I find the rules that govern the giving and taking of consent to be rational, logical, and consistent. However, I am aware that the state and public health practitioners have powers that doctors do not in situations where there is a concern of "protecting the public interest."

alot of the rules about public health are pretty archaic and might get shot down if these powers are used again in the future. For example, Typhoid Mary would be suing the city left and right if her case had happened in 2007, and somewhere up the ladder of the courts the limit of a public health agency's power would be defined.

In a health emergency they really have almost unlimited power over people and property

[zakk]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

If you don't want to be called a scumbag, then maybe you should treat other people nicely, especially people who are your patients, Mr.Godcomplex.
.

You can sever ties with non-compliant patients, and probably should, since non-compliants are usually the first to try to dance all over your head when they fall ill due to their own negligence.

[shadha]

MC: except by forcing them to home school their disease-bags

Their disease-bags...lmao.


shadha-