Smallpox and Civil Liberties
Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute reviews the very interesting sounding new book Pox: An American History. As Gottlieb notes, the American battle against smallpox is as much a story of medical innovation as it is one about balancing civil liberties with state power:
When some states introduced mandatory smallpox vaccinations during the epidemic of 1898-1903, Americans resisted by the thousands. The ensuing battles produced medical conventions and case law that altered the balance between government authority and medical practice, in favor of federal control. The effects of the smallpox fight continue to this day: The Obama health-care law and the infrastructure required to administer it rely on some of these century-old precedents.
In "Pox: An American History," Michael Willrich meticulously traces the story of how the smallpox vaccine was pressed into service during a major outbreak. Sometimes the shots were physically forced on people, outraging their sense of personal freedom and—when the vaccine sickened some and killed others—galvanizing suspicion of vaccination programs. The episode, Mr. Willrich says, prompted large swaths of Americans to insist that "the liberty protected by the Constitution also encompassed the right of a free people to take care of their own bodies and children according to their own medical beliefs and consciences."
Read the whole thing here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Thank the vocabulary- and economics-challenged who don't know what the words "public health" actually mean.
Sometimes the shots were physically forced on people, outraging their sense of personal freedom and?when the vaccine sickened some and killed others...Tell us about it
Preach it, brother. Now, would you like your eggs over-easy or sunny side up?
"...the right of a free people to take care of their own bodies and children according to their own medical beliefs and consciences."
Indeed, if we don't have the freedom not to be forcibly injected with things against our will, then what freedoms do we really have?
I think this may come to a head as immunological diseases and allergies continue to plague the developed world. And our consciousness of genetic predispositions are only likely to fuel that fire.
As testing choices continue to proliferate, and people become increasingly aware if their children have a genetic predisposition to an autoimmune disorder, then that's just one more thing for parents to take into consideration when gauging the risks to their children against the benefit of herd immunity.
I'm not here for the benefit of society. And if I ever have any children, and they have a genetic predisposition to inherit an autoimmune disorder, I'm not about to inject them with something that I think's more likely to hurt them than help them.
...certainly not just for the good of society. I'm not here for you. Me and my family are livin' life for us. Society's generally better of when we're all free to make our own choices--that's what makes me libertarian.
What about the fact of communicable diseases... do you have a right to spread disease to other people?
That communicable diseases spread is a fact of life, and doesn't implicate anybody's rights one way or the other. It requires a thoroughly warped and logically untenable definition of rights to imagine that I've violated your rights should you happen to catch a cold from me.
What if I start a fire on my property that ends up burning down your house. Just one of those facts of life about fire?
Re: Night Elf Mohawk,
Another nitwit who understands naught the meaning of "rights."
YOU started the fire. It's your act, your fault.
Can YOU get sick with a disease at will?
Yeah - just hang around unvaccinated idiots.
What does the meaning of "rights" have to do with my culpability for the fire? Now, granted, you're the same guy who defined an unnoticed burglary of a garage as "violent" so definitions may not be your strong suit, but give it a try.
And what if I didn't start the fire but it resulted from the unsafe storage of gasoline on my property? Surely I have the right to store my gasoline on my property as I see fit, right?
Ruh roh!
I don't get all the fire references. You're really being stupid about them.
If a fire on my property spreads to your property, I am liable because I did not take the necessary action to prevent the fire from spreading. Do you seriously have no concept of individual responsibility?
Just like spreading AIDS... if you do it intentionally, you can be convicted of murder/attempted murder depending on the state. It's the intent behind the action that matters, not the effect of inaction.
You can't 'spread' AIDS, which is a state of vulnerability to a vast array of opportunistic infections due to a compromised immune system. You can spread HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
If a fire disease on my property person spreads to your property person, I am liable because I did not take the necessary action to prevent the fire disease from spreading. Do you seriously have no concept of individual responsibility?
Yes, I am liable if I go out knowing I have the disease specifically trying to spread it. Not being vaccinated is NOT the equivalent of attempting to spread the disease. Why do you continue to try to equate the two?
To be yet more clear, the first requires no action on my part, only contentment in my current state, which is easily obtained. The latter would require several steps of violent action for me to infect your person, which is what makes me liable.
The latter would require several steps of violent action for me to infect your person, which is what makes me liable.
I'm not sure where this is coming from other than possibly that I posted about a disease (meant to refer to smallpox) just after you were posing about AIDS. Either way, though I am not a smallpox expert, I think all it could take was breathing on a person to transmit it.
Not being vaccinated is NOT the equivalent of attempting to spread the disease. Why do you continue to try to equate the two?
Where did I attempt to equate the two?
It seems clear to me that some actions impose costs on others even without intent. Now, if you want to argue that intent is required in order to be liable for damages you're throwing out the whole of liability based on negligence. Even so, this isn't about intent or lack of intent. It's about the possibility that what you perceive as a personal right of choice can cause damage to someone else so it isn't all about the choice-maker.
Such large moral/legal distinctions over a difference of how neurons happened to be firing in your brain at the time... even if the outcome is the same.
Re: Night Elf Mohawk,
A lot, as you're trying to draw a parallel between spreading disease and spreading fire in a discussion about individual rights and state coercion, as if one (the fire) and the other (disease) warranted the same response from the government. Spreading fire is a purposefull act for which you're accountable. Spreading disease is NOT a conscious act, almost never is.
You consciously stored gasoline in your property, NEM. People do not go around consciously getting sick, almost never (I do take into account really weird shit-eaters and study volunteers.)
What if I start a fire on my property that ends up burning down your house.
You have the right to burn down your own house if you want, though not for the purpose of fraudulently claiming insurance.
If your deliberately set fire causes my own house to burn down despite my best efforts to prevent it, you can be held liable for the forseeable damage you caused.
"What if I start a fire on my property that ends up burning down your house. Just one of those facts of life about fire?"
Again, we seem to be conflating something purposeful with something that probably isn't. People don't refuse vaccinations because they're trying to spread disease; they're just making choices that they think are in their own best interest.
Why conflate that with something it isn't?
I'm actually sympathetic to weed abatement and local government forcing people in high fire danger areas to keep their property from becoming a clear and present danger to their neighbors' property.
I think how people and governments manage to sort through our overlapping rights is too complicated a process to have some universal rule that applies to all of it. That's part of what's great about being a libertarian--I don't have to come up with a law that fits every situation. People making themselves look foolish by trying to come up with a universal rule to fit every situation--that's the the job of the authoritarians.
But I will stick to my guns on certain extremes. If I can't refuse the government's decision to inject me with something, then do I really have any individual rights at all?
If my individual rights aren't my rights regardless of whether the government finds them inconvenient, then do any of us really have any individual rights at all?
It's one thing for the government to insist on certain immunizations if you want to go to a public school--in defense of the other children who go there. Quite another to insist on immunizing children whether they go to a public school or not.
In other words, I'm not necessarily saying that there isn't any degree to which the government should be interested in protecting the public from disease. My aunt was almost crippled with polio as a child in the '50s; she almost certainly contracted it at school. Why wouldn't a public school be interested in protecting its children from diseases?
But I am saying that if individuals have any right at all to go against what the government wants them to do, then surely individuals deciding what they will and won't have injected into them must be within that right.
That's the point where things get personal.
But you don't have to send your kids to public school. That's your choice.
Actually communicable disease is a beautiful example of why the atomistic assumptions of libertarianism are a fantasy.
Is the world really a freer place with smallpox rampant than with it eradicated? And how do you eradicate it without some top-down organization?
Uh, you wouldn't get smallpox if you were vaccinated. You won't get aids if you don't have sex with people that have aids. How does forcing me to have a vaccine that I don't want make you any more free to have the vaccine if you want it?
Actually this isn't true. A non-negligible percent of the time the vaccine doesn't take for one reason or another. It usually doesn't matter because of herd immunity. Get rid of that herd immunity and that goes away. Not to mention the fact that some people can't take vaccines because of autoimmune disorders.
Unsure of your argument here... Is the basic point that you can only be saved by collective salvation, and there's no way to avoid getting smallpox if you don't force every man woman and child on earth to take a vaccine that could potentially end their life?
While you're right that sometimes vaccines don't work, and also correct that some people can't take vaccines, that's not really my problem. No guarantees in life; if you don't want smallpox you take the vaccine increasing your chances against contracting the disease. If you don't really care if you die, then really there's nothing a vaccine can do for you anyway, because you're going to make a decision that ends your life sooner or later anyhow. Forcing the person to make a "smart" decision probably winds up endangering society more.
Your understanding of herd immunity is woefully inadequate.
This is definitely an area where Libertarian philosophy comes in conflict with itself. These issues are probably similar to issues of liability related to "attractive nuisance" and negligent endangerment.
Not all force is deliberate. You walking around with a communicable disease is an initiation of force on other people (at least potentially).
You can't lock everyone up for having the flu, even though the flu kills hundreds of thousands of people every year. Your definition of "force" is far too broad.
And libertarians' far too narrow. Especially when they refuse to believe in external costs because the concept conflicts with the policies they want.
You walking around with a communicable disease is an initiation of force on other people
The stupid, it burns.
Ironically, the increased supply from the decreased demand (me not wanting it) would make it cheaper and hence easier for you to get exactly what you want.
Actually communicable disease is a beautiful example of why the atomistic assumptions of libertarianism are a fantasy.
Not in the least.
Is the world really a freer place with smallpox rampant than with it eradicated? And how do you eradicate it without some top-down organization?
How did virtually everyone in the US ever obtain a computer? How does virtually everyone in the US obtain aspirin? How do millions in the US obtain vision correction?
Piss poor logic is piss poor.
"Actually communicable disease is a beautiful example of why the atomistic assumptions of libertarianism are a fantasy."
To be fair, Tony, I'm not happy with many of the answers here, to be sure. But I think it's precisely the individual rights of the to-be-infected that would justify vaccination (or at least quarantine) in this scenario. I think there's a level at which, statistically, you become an actual threat to other individuals by undertaking a certain activity. It's ok to drive (even with a small risk of crashing); It's not ok to put one round in your revolver, spin, point, and start clicking at random. At that point I think others are justified in detaining/restraining you because you're effectively violating the rights of others. The line might be fuzzy, but it's there. I don't think you have to dismiss property rights to handle negative externalities (in fact most of the negative externalities i'm aware of exist because there is a commons involved as opposed to privately owned resources).
To be fair, Tony, I'm not happy with many of the answers here, to be sure. But I think it's precisely the individual rights of the to-be-infected that would justify vaccination (or at least quarantine) in this scenario. I think there's a level at which, statistically, you become an actual threat to other individuals by undertaking a certain activity. It's ok to drive (even with a small risk of crashing); It's not ok to put one round in your revolver, spin, point, and start clicking at random. At that point I think others are justified in detaining/restraining you because you're effectively violating the rights of others. The line might be fuzzy, but it's there. I don't think you have to dismiss property rights to handle negative externalities (in fact most of the negative externalities i'm aware of exist because there is a commons involved as opposed to privately owned resources).
I think people like to conflate the argument of "I should not be forced to be vaccinated" with the strawman "I want to catch diseases and spread them to you."
The rejection of mandatory actions has nothing to do with rejection of the action. Most people realize the benefit and seek out preventative health measures, yet disagree with the concept that they should be made to accept such measures against their consent.
Ok, let's forget disease is involved, since, apparently, death by easily prevented disease is just one of those wacky things that happens to everybody.
So you have a big bucket filled with sulphuric acid you carry around as good luck charm. You choose not to use a lid, so it keeps splashing on people. Are my resulting chemical burns a violation of my rights? Is asking you to avoid unnecessarily exposing me to hazardous substances a violation of yours?
Are you seriously equating voluntarily and deliberately toting around a hazardous substance with declining a vaccination?
If so, you're as much of a hopeless dumbass as Tony. Go drink some bleach.
But if you have a disease and know about it and you go out in public, you are knowingly exposing people to danger without their consent. I tend to agree that people shouldn't be forced to be vaccinated, but I also think that things like vaccination requirements for school attendance are a good idea. You don't want to vaccinate your kids, fine, but expect to be shunned by the rest of society.
It is a shame that the term "public health" has been so abused by the nannies.
Re: Tony,
How can you have a right to something that is not under your control?
Oh, you're the nitwit who understands naught the meaning of "rights." Sorry, I forgive you.
How is it not under your control if there exists a vaccine?
Re: Tony,
Who said "vaccine"? You asked: "What about the fact of communicable diseases... do you have a right to spread disease to other people?"
Many communicable diseases do not have a vaccine to combat them. People communicate diseases to other people ALL THE TIME.
Yeah and tornadoes hit all the time. Would the world be better off if we had no collective response to such natural disasters?
Re: Tony,
Well, to draw an exact parallel, people should then be made to live underground so they don't "spread" splinters whenever twisters turn their homes into toohpicks. Same shit as with vaccines, responding to your question.
Do you feel better now?
What about the fact of communicable diseases... do you have a right to spread disease to other people?
Are you, as a gay man, OK with forcibly quarantining, for life, anyone testing HIV positive? Or in some other coercive manner preventing such people from ever having penetrative intercourse?
If not, at what point does the cognitive dissonance get so loud that you recognize the right of people to not be forcible vaccinated?
Or is it that you want to be personally free, and are OK with coercion of the peasants?
I'm not sure what my being gay has to do with anything.
Of course there should be different policies for different types of diseases. HIV is spread by sex but is easily prevented with appropriate measures. Government's role is to make this information universally available.
For some airborne deadly disease, it might be prudent to have mandatory vaccinations.
Government should have no role in preventing HIV infections. Private parties / internet searches are capable of letting everyone know what preventive measures lessen the risks.
The subject of this thread is diseases that any individual can prevent personally contracting by taking the vaccines.
You don't see the dangers of letting the government force non-consenting people to have substances injected into their bodies ostensibly to protect others against diseases?
How would you feel about the government forcing every man to submit to HIV tests, and then forcing every man who tested positive to be chemically castrated with Depo-Provera, because that would guard against the spread of HIV?
If you object to that measure that would certainly prevent some spread of a deadly disease, on the grounds of civil liberties, why the selected objections to that, and not other forcible government injections of chemicals?
If you don't defend the civil liberties of others, why would you expect them to stand up for YOUR civil liberties?
I don't know why you feel the need to exaggerate. I said policies should be circumstantial.
AIDS came into being before the Internet. Would government have been a prudent tool for distributing information then? That's an awfully cruel approach to take just in the name of hating government.
Forced vaccination admittedly is at the extreme end of preventive actions. Merely making vaccinations available is probably sufficient for most things. Of course you must believe that if you can't afford to be vaccinated you deserve to get a disease and die.
And what about children? They often are placed among hundreds of other children every day. What if their custodians (parents) don't want them vaccinated? Why isn't that tantamount to forcing disease on potentially hundreds of other children? And where do the child's choices come in to play? I realize in libertopia there are no children.
---"What if their custodians (parents) don't want them vaccinated? Why isn't that tantamount to forcing disease on potentially hundreds of other children?"---
Under this scenario, the only children at risk are those whose parents chose "not to vacinate". The children of the parents who chose "to vacinate" would be protected. End of your problem.
I think the problem ended before that.
Once again, it's up to the authoritarians to make up laws that work for everyone in every situation. Not libertarians.
I'm a libertarian. I don't have to worry about that. We all make our own choices--that's the only solution that almost always works best for everyone in almost every situation.
Every time we see some authoritarian object to libertarian solutions on the basis that one person's choice won't work in every situation--the problem isn't with the libertarian solution...
It's in the authoritarian's head!
Why should anyone assume that solutions that work best for everyone generally will work best for each of us individually? That's a question for authoritarians to answer! That's the question they ask themselves all the time!
Why would anyone address that question to a libertarian? We never said everybody had to live or die by the same solution--that's what makes us libertarians!
"What about the fact of communicable diseases... do you have a right to spread disease to other people?"
That isn't the question on the table.
If I purposely infect other people, then that's a crime. It's some kind of assault if they get sick because I purposely infected them, and I'm guilty of murder if they die.
The question on the table isn't about purposely infecting people; it's whether the government should force people to undergo vaccination.
Why conflate the two? They're two different things.
Not being vaccinated and forcing someone to get sick is not all that much of a distinction. Why don't practical outcomes matter to you guys more than what happens to be going on inside people's heads? I appreciate that law often considers motive, but it is a bit Jesus-y to place "what's in your heart" above all else.
"Why don't practical outcomes matter to you guys more than what happens to be going on inside people's heads?"
Two part answer:
1) Practical outcomes do matter--but they're not the deciding factor.
People's rights are freakin' inconvenient. No question about it.
From Chairman Mao, to Stalin and other totalitarians--dictators can make huge changes to society when they don't have to worry about people's rights.
Nobody said that individual rights were convenient.
2) Societies that feature individual rights prominently outperform societies that don't feature individual rights prominently--as a practical matter.
The history of the 20th Century is the history of societies that feature individual rights prominently outperforming those that didn't.
Outperforming them militarily and outperforming them economically.
Individual rights are painfully inconvenient, but as a practical matter, they're the key to justice and prosperity--as a practical matter.
Re: Tony,
Who is being forced to get sick?
Said Walter Duranty.
What about the fact of communicable diseases... do you have a right to spread disease to other people?
Tony, you are on the wrong track. The fact that the government tries to resolve some problem does not in any way negate the rights of the people.
The government has to address the problem in a way that does not violate rights.
"the liberty protected by the Constitution also encompassed the right of a free people to take care of their own bodies and children according to their own medical beliefs and consciences."
the Courts recognizing this would be the single greatest improvement to american society that could happen today.
You racist, aren't you?
Maybe, but I think that the "vaccines cause autism" crowd needs to be taken out and shot first.
kids however are different animals whether involving abuse or medical intervention. guardian ad litems represent kids best interests in adjudication.
It's definately a touchy subject, but one where common sense should prevail:
Your rights should end when they begin to encroach upon the rights of the well being of others. You should not have the right to go as you please being a walking vector and imposing life threatening diseases on other people against their will. If you plan to never leave your house or interact with anyone at any point in your life (and death for as long as you remain able to spread disease) then you absolutely shouldn't have to be vaccinated.
"Your rights should end when they begin to encroach upon the rights of the well being of others."
Not exactly.
I've gone into competition with other people--sometimes competition can drive other people out of the industry.
Sometimes our rights overlap. But your "well being" isn't necessarily my responsibility.
A society where the only things that are permitted are those things that don't adversely affect anyone else?
Is not a free society.
I agree with your point and my initial phrase probably wasn't worded strongly enough, however - There's a difference between competition in industry and markets and potentially ending someones life. People freely chose to go into that market or industry thus exposing themselves to competition, and they are also able to switch industries or markets when the competition becomes too fierce. It would be hard to state that people freely chose to contract an incurable disease, from which they can't as easily avoid, simply because they left there home.
* There's a difference between competition in industry and markets and potentially ending someones life.
Exactly why you shouldn't be allowed to force something onto someone that could potentially end their life.
* It would be hard to state that people freely chose to contract an incurable disease, from which they can't as easily avoid, simply because they left there home.
Fortunately, this isn't the case. Thanks for the strawman though.
That would depend on the characteristics of the pathogen, wouldn't it?
SEE!!?!?!?!
You're not going to stay in your house forever, so when you choose to go outside you are choosing to make me responsible for paying for your healthcare. It's the exact same thing. Maybe you can't help but get sick when I expose you to my germs, but the social contract means that government has to take care of us all, so that affects me. WINNING!
Same logic abides.
TEAM BLUE WINS!
Excellent job ov providing nothing of value to the conversation - you really might be a typical liberal.
nope - typical wingut acting like he actually understands lub-rahls
Cuts a little too close, huh?
ur right - probably an emo wingnut
Also, for a group that constantly brings up the deaths caused by diseases such as malaria this should be a pretty interesting topic.
Are these other people that would be threatened unable to get the same vaccine I would be refusing?
Or the ones who had just been vaccinated but had not yet developed the resistance to the disease that the vaccination was inteneded for. Vaccines don't work instantly you know, as magical as that would be.
I don't see the problem here. If one can still contract or spread the disease for a short period of time after receiving the vaccine, it doesn't matter whether I refuse it or not. The potential for the disease to be spread still exists for everyone.
And now we're venturing into free rider territory.
When only 1 or 2 helicopter moms refuse vaccines for their kids, the incidence of disease is still suppressed. But when everyone starts skipping out, it can get nasty fast.
Not everyone skipping out, just a critical number of them. That number could be as low as one or two percent, depending on population density.
Not everyone skipping out, just a critical number of them. That number could be as low as one or two percent, depending on population density.
But the disease would be largely confined to that 1-2 percent. The vaccinated will still be protected.
It's definately a touchy subject, but one where common sense should prevail:
Your rights should end when they begin to encroach upon the rights of the well being of others. You should not have the right to go as you please being a walking vector and imposing life threatening diseases on other people against their will. If you plan to never leave your house or interact with anyone at any point in your life (and death for as long as you remain able to spread disease) then you absolutely shouldn't have to be vaccinated.
With rare exceptions, infectious agents aren't transmitted with knowledge (the infectious period can often precede the period of peak symptoms). Cultures have developed all manner of norms to reduce the transmission of disease, because it is so harmful and difficult to control.
Rights are predicated on reasonable agent control. If I slip and drop a baby from my arms, it is not considered the same as if I drop one to see it fall. As Ken elaborates, your reasonable control of your rights also requires personal choices to limit unforseen events, like infections.
Wait, lets say the vaccine keeps a person from getting disease X. I don't trust the vaccine to be safe. You do. You take the vaccine and force your family to do the same. How am I encroaching upon you if I choose not to? You are protected from the disease. It doesn't matter if I am or not, you can't get it.
Bingo.
Just because you choose to feed your child that doesn't mean I have to feed mine.
Wait, lets say the vaccine keeps a person from getting disease X. I don't trust the vaccine to be safe. You do. You take the vaccine and force your family to do the same. How am I encroaching upon you if I choose not to? You are protected from the disease. It doesn't matter if I am or not, you can't get it.
Correct. This is one of the rights-hypotheticals that confuses people. Because we contract infectious diseases from others, it is easy to contort the responsibility for protection onto the other and away from oneself. The hypothetical tends to fall apart when you realize that it assumes that YOU too are not vaccinated (can't catch the disease if you're vaccinated) and have thus shirked this proposed responsibility to public health.
Herd immunity
Vaccines aren't 100% effective. If enough people in a population are vaccinated, herd immunity still protects those who the vaccine didn't work on, those who can't get the vaccine due to immune disorders, or those who are too young to be vaccinated.
And if they're not mandated not a single person will get one.
Only if there is a law passed will people get them.
There is no such thing as social pressure or personal responsibility.
Nope.
Government's got to mandate things or not one single solitary person will ever do it.
Yep.
This is evidenced by the fact that nobody ever gets a flu shot.
Yep, gotta mandate it or it won't get done.
What's a 'flu shot'?
I had a college prof who died from a flu shot. It might, in general, be a smart decision to get one (especially at his age), but sometimes playing the odds is a bitch.
I dont get flu shots, thats the way I roll.
It's a matter of risks, consequences, and probabilities. I don't get flu shots because
1. I am generally healthy enough that I don't catch flu even when exposed;
2. When I do rarely catch a flu, the results fall far short PF death or hospitalization;
3. Flu shots only confer immunity to a small portion of possible flus.
If I were presented with the choice to vaccinate my child against Ebola, however:
1. Low communicability;
2. Severe consequences of infection;
3. Low chance of being exposed;
all weigh differently. As someone upthread pointed out, my choice to be vaccinated or not should affect you only in the part of the risk calculation dealing with probability of exposure. The severity of the consequences of exposure are your problem to figure out. Presented with this problem, and outside of coercive forces, rational actors will most likely choose vaccination, and those who do not are free to deal with their own sickness if they contract the disease.
Most likely, simple peer pressure will ensure vaccination enough to cover most of the population. Better knowledge of the stats on society-wide vaccination rates should help too. If you read a news report stating that only 10% of people were vaccinated against a serious disease, you might be very likely to go get a shot. In our current state of information, we are left to assume that school attendance rules ensure near universal vaccination, when that may be far from the actual truth.
I think that you are correct that most people would voluntarily choose to be vaccinated or have their kids vaccinated. Unfortunately, there is enough pseudo-scientific bullshit out there that we do see outbreaks of things like measles because of the "vaccines cause autism" idiots.
I'm not saying that that justifies physically forcing people to be vaccinated, but I think that some pressure in that direction is warranted.
I'm really torn on this issue. On the one hand, I can't stand forcing anyone to do anything. But on the other, people who refuse vaccination are imposing some risk on other people that could be reduced or eliminated easily.
Actually, they are not imposing risk. They are failing to contribute to others' risk-mitigation strategy, which is different.
Re: Doc S,
Masochists would probably agree with that:
Masochist: "Please, hurt me! It's my right!"
Sadist: "No."
See? The right of the sadist to not act is clearly violating the masochist's well-being!!
Thank you, Doc, for that insight!
You certainly have NO right to consciously inoculate someone with a disease, but that does not mean you have to confine yourself to your house, since the spread of disease is a haphazard event as it is and, in most cases, inevitable.
"Masochists would probably agree with that:
Masochist: "Please, hurt me! It's my right!"
Sadist: "No."
See? The right of the sadist to not act is clearly violating the masochist's well-being!!"
Come on old mex, you're better than this, you know that this isn't even close to an adequate or relevant comparison.
Re: Doc S,
I am not making a comparison, Doc S. I am doing a reductio ad absurdum from your assertion. And it IS adequate.
Flu epidemics each year despite whatever we can think of is sufficient evidence.
Malaria is spread by mosquitos, not by person-to-person contact or by air.
There's a difference between the flu shot and vaccines for these diseases. What is commonly referred to as the flu is a constantly changing set of virus strains, the flu shot only addresses the strains that are predicted to be the most prevalent that year.
Vaccinations for diseases like MMR, hep, etc are effective because the virus strains are not constantly changing and are more easily defended against. A flu shot vaccine does not equal a small pox or MMR vaccine. One can completely eliminate the incidence of the disease, the other can only hope to prevent the occourence of the most common forms.
Try again.
Your reductio only works if you accept the existence of positive rights, and I will be pretty damn surprised if you do that, OM.
Re: Zeb,
Right, Zeb. Pointing out the absurdity of the positivist assertion from Doc S somehow makes me a believer in positive rights. Did you read the thread, at all?
"Your rights should end when they begin to encroach upon the rights of the well being of others."
People do not have a well-being by right, otherwise we could sue the sun every time we get sunburn. *MY* well being is MY responsibility, not another's. The ONLY responsibility I have when it comes to others is NOT to initiate force against them. My rights certainly do not end where the "well being" of others "begins," as I have NO idea how each person defines their well being nor do they know how I define mine.
Do YOU understand now?
well I shouldn't say you're better than this, you often give irrelevant and borderline asinine comparisons and analogies, I guess I just hoped for better from you this time.
Re: Doc S,
Who is being asinine, Doc? It is YOU who keeps insisting that I am making a comparison. I am making a reductio ad absurdum, that is, driving your assertion to it's logical conclusion: Havint to cater to every whim and desire a person believes improves his "well being," as a matter of right.
Maybe you should think of rephrasing your assertion.
It's not the logical conclusion at all. The masochist has the right to hurt himself or the right to request others to hurt him, but the sadist has the right to refuse. This doesn't negatively impact the masochists well being, but on the countrary prevents him from harm. The masochist can still hurt himself if he wants but he cant force the sadist to do it. The sadist has not encroached upon the masochists rights, as the masochist has no right (or entitlement) to be hurt by others.
Whether you call it reductio ad absurdum or a Comparison, it is still wrong.
Re: Doc S,
Please, read your assertion again: "Your rights should end when they begin to encroach upon the rights of the well being of others."
Which is why I used the masochist and sadist joke to illustrate the absurdity of what you said. According to you, now everybody is responsible for the well being of others, whatever that well being would entail.
The only thing *I* have to do is stay Mexican and die. What I *can't* do is physically and purposefully harm others or steal from others. Besides that, every person is responsible for him or herself - I am not their wet nurse.
/sigh
Keep grasping.
And how is the spread of a disease inevitable. Libretarians constant preaching of the effects of DDT esentially eliminating malaria would seem to lead to another conclusion
Should be interesting to see how that all works out.
http://www.real-privacy.eu.tc
I am not a herd animal.
P.S. rob... Those tornado's seem to have put up quite the competition with the April 4 ones you had mentioned.
And yet still fell short.
Especially considering they took way more than 24 hours, while April 3rd (get your fucking dates right) was a single 24 hour period (yes it lasted into the 4th, but they are called the April 3rd tornadoes).
"And yet still fell short."
I'm pretty sure this depends on which metrics you are comparing.
"I am not a herd animal."
I'm afraid that if you ever leave your house and interact with other people, in some sense you are.
I'm not saying that this justifies any particular policy, but herd immunity does seem to be a real phenomenon. Perhaps we should choose a less dehumanizing term for it.
I'm on the fence on this, and must break ranks with the hyper-individualists who think their actions do not affect anyone else.
There is such a thing as "herd immunity". Your action in not getting your children immunized affects no one but your child... UNLESS you are joined by enough other people that the tipping point is reached. Then you start getting outbreaks of preventable diseases. The legal quandary is that there is no definable property right for a libertarian to point to. Your child gets whooping cough and dies, who do you sue?
I don't like the idea of the government forcing vaccinations, but requiring vaccinations for attending school (public or private) is a damned good idea, and is falls within classic liberalism's role for government: to protect the lives, liberties and properties of the people.
Well stated.
I'm on the fence on this, and must break ranks with the hyper-individualists who think their actions do not affect anyone else.
Get you and your children vaccinated and it matters not if others don't.
Exactly.
This is entirely untrue. Many of the childhood disease vaccines are well below 100% effective. If everyone is vaccinated there is no population large enough to sustain an infection, so nobody gets the disease. Measles, mumps, whooping cough, rubella...all of these fall in to this category.
If a large enough percentage of the population eschews vaccination a much larger subset of the population is put at risk. This percentage is not very large. Somewhat below 10% avoiding vaccination can put 1/3 of the population at risk.
Plus, having an active and spreading pool of disease allows the organism time to adapt to the new population and medical treatments - possibly creating a bug that can't be treated. Isn't that nice...
This is entirely untrue. Many of the childhood disease vaccines are well below 100% effective. If everyone is vaccinated there is no population large enough to sustain an infection, so nobody gets the disease. Measles, mumps, whooping cough, rubella...all of these fall in to this category.
If a large enough percentage of the population eschews vaccination a much larger subset of the population is put at risk. This percentage is not very large. Somewhat below 10% avoiding vaccination can put 1/3 of the population at risk.
Plus, having an active and spreading pool of disease allows the organism time to adapt to the new population and medical treatments - possibly creating a bug that can't be treated. Isn't that nice...
All of this is may be true, although my statement should not be construed as an absolute. I realize that vaccinations are not 100% effective, but the reality is that the US doesn't force vaccinations (though it does make it onerous not to) and few are huddling in their homes for fear of the small subset that isn't vaccinated.
Because vaccinations are instantly effective, 100% effective, and there are no medical reasons why any particular individual might not be best served by getting one.
Because vaccinations are instantly effective, 100% effective, and there are no medical reasons why any particular individual might not be best served by getting one.
These conditions exist under mandatory situations as well. Demanding mandatory requirements because things aren't 100% perfect is bad reasoning.
Not if herd immunity can prevent the disease even with less than 100% effectiveness of the vaccine and if there are people who can't get the vaccine.
Not if herd immunity can prevent the disease even with less than 100% effectiveness of the vaccine and if there are people who can't get the vaccine.
And there is little reasoning and evidence to believe that people, in sufficient numbers, would reject voluntary vaccinations and opt for the disease.
Not true.
But it has to be! It just has to!!
I'm with you. I chose to get my kids immunized for many reasons. My pediatrician did not need to sell me on the idea but he pitched anyway. He said that the number one thing most recent immigrants do for themselves and their kids is get immunized - they have seen people die of measles and polio and don't want the same to happen to them. I live in an area where there are many recent immigrants of Latin American, Indian, and African descent. I taught many a student who could not speak English yet due to being so new, but before they enrolled in school or learned English, they got vaccinated (and, YES, I know vaccination is a requirement for admission to public schools. That should not nullify the idea that parents saw a good reason to get themselves and their kids protected from potentially deadly diseases).
It might be a tad melodramatic, but there is a ring of truth to it too. I don't fear that my kids will spread disease but I do fear they might catch it, hence I have had them immunized. I don't believe that vaccines = autism (how can a single study with an n of 12 be believable?).
It is within my power, despite state coercion, to give my children healthy bodies capable of resisting debilitating or deadly diseases. Why would I not make that choice? Yet I respect that there are parents who would argue that the choice is theirs and not an arbitrary "state" decision; my choice has made theirs a non-issue as far as my own children (and genetic legacy) is concerned. I considered taking the chance on non-vaccination and did not think it worth the risk. If others want to take the chance, so be it, as long as I do not have to pay a price for it, with my money or my health.
"If others want to take the chance, so be it, as long as I do not have to pay a price for it, with my money"
Commerce Clause, bitches.
" don't like the idea of the government forcing vaccinations, but requiring vaccinations for attending school (public or private) is a damned good idea, and is falls within classic liberalism's role for government: to protect the lives, liberties and properties of the people."
Maybe. Maybe not. If I try going back to school (university) I have to provide proof of vaccination for measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc.
But here's the deal, I can't do that as I am in my 50's and was never vaccinated for measles, mumps and chicken pox, but I am immune to them now because I contracted them all as a child, as did most from my generation.
Getting a shot anyway is one option. Getting a titer of the circulating antibodies is another.
Re: Brandybuck,
And then you say:
"I don't like the idea of the government forcing vaccinations, but requiring vaccinations for attending school (public or private) is a damned good idea[...]"
Woudn't that be a private property solution? If I run a private school and I only do business with parents whose kids are vaccinated, then am I not exercising my right to use my private property as I see fit?
I am not a herd animal.
This is up for debate.
Refusing vaccinations is irresponsible, stupid, and should be totally within a person's rights.
If you don't want to catch a disease from someone who refused to get vaccinated, then get yourself a vaccination.
Sheesh!
Refusing vaccinations is irresponsible, stupid, and should be totally within a person's rights.
Bolded for emphasis.
If you don't want to catch a disease from someone who refused to get vaccinated, then get yourself a vaccination.
Bolded for emphasis.
Ditto.
... Hobbit
Is there some better way to get people to understand what herd immunity is? Over and over, statements like this demonstrate ignorance of the concept despite it being brought up repeatedly.
It's not just the one side of her immunity that they don't get either.
There's the fact that immunizations aren't 100% effective and that herd immunity helps keep those for whom the immunization was ineffective safe.
But I don't think everyone appreciates that the fact that most people being immunized helps keep people who choose not to be immunized safe too.
If you're gauging a child's genetic predisposition to developing an immunological disorder--against the fact that he already has significant protection because of herd immunity?
Then that's not an irrational consideration.
Some people may denounce that thinking as selfish, but that's hardly the same thing as denouncing it as uninformed.
In fact, when I hear most people denounce those who refuse to vaccinate their children, I think it's almost always couched in one of the following terms--they're either denouncing people for being uninformed or they're denouncing them for being narrow minded conspiracy theorists or they're denouncing them for being selfish.
I don't hold it against people for making choices they think are in their own best interest--that isn't a problem for me. And I don't think people's rights disappear just because their beliefs are rigid or stupid--even if they are rigid or stupid.
Like I said, I'm not sure everyone's objections to immunizing their kids with every immunization is necessarily stupid in every situation, but even if it were?
I think free adults have a right to drink strychnine, dance with snakes in their hands and smoke cigarettes! I think they have a right to drink alcohol--even if that means some of them might drive around drunk and run into me!
A commitment to freedom lets people do lots of stupid things that might effect libertarians like me--why is immunization any different?
There is a difference between "Go ahead - I don't mind if you do something stupid to yourself," and "It's my right to be an idiot, even if it puts you & yours at greater risk." I don't believe that you are claiming that others have the right to drive drunk.
"If you don't want to catch a disease from someone who refused to get vaccinated, then get yourself a vaccination."
I think that's a fair enough conclusion on a pragmatic level but it doesn't address the ethical or political issue of force being used. For instance, if I don't want to be punched by someone throwing a punch at me, I should move, or maybe not go out in public.
That might be smart on consequential grounds (for sure) but it doesn't close the case regarding rights and obligations.
Janet lifted her head away from Precious, her mouth covered with cat fur and blood. "Don't go outside, Mommy. The Pox is in the air. You can't see it or taste it or smell it or see it or touch it or hear it but it's there. The kitties are the first to go." She took another bite.
Forced vaccination smacks of making people do things for others. I've got a laundry list of vaccinations, and have only balked once or twice (like when they wanted to give me a second yellow fever vaccine less than a month after the first one because of a paperwork mixup). I got them because I was going to some extremely crappy parts of the world and didn't want to join the disease of the month club.
You don't want to get sick? Get a vaccine. Dont' want to get the vaccine or give it to your precious snowflake? Accept the results of your poor choices when somebody gets ill. You can't medically get that vaccine? Try to avoid being around sick people. There are no guarantees in life.
The onus is on you to cope with your medical problems, not the rest of us.
disease of the month club.
Now With the Nurgle Seal Of Approval!
Rights versus Responsibilities.
The libertarian view that individuals do not have a responsibility to act in certain ways is at the heart of this discussion.
You have a responsibility to get vaccinated. It is as important as your right to liberty. You also have a responsibility to serve jury duty. There are others. Without responsibilities in the discussion, it is easy for the liberty argument to seem like it is winning the day. But that is because you are only discussing half of the issue...rights with no mention of the responsibilities that go along with being a member of a community.
We all know that my only responsibility is to myself and my well being, so if i dont want a vaccine I dont have to get one!
Re: Neu Mejican,
They're not mutually exclusive, Neu. Having rights MEANS having responsibilities towards others. What you DON'T have are ENTITLEMENTS: neither YOU nor ME are entitled to a disease-free world.
False. I have a responsibility not to purposefully kill you or assault you, or steal from you. Besides that, the ONLY thing *I* have to do is stay Mexican and die.
Having rights MEANS having responsibilities towards others. What you DON'T have are ENTITLEMENTS:
Responsibilities imply entitlements (at some level).
neither YOU nor ME are entitled to a disease-free world.
False. I have a responsibility not to purposefully kill you or assault you, or steal from you. Besides that, the ONLY thing *I* have to do is stay Mexican and die.
You have missed the point, as usual. You have responsibilities TO ACT in certain ways, not just to avoid certain types of action.
hmmm... tag error.
neither YOU nor ME are entitled to a disease-free world.
I never said we were.
Re: New Mejican,
For instance?
The only thing I *have* to do is stay Mexican and die, Neu. The only thing I can't do as a matter of right is trample over your rights. So what is this "action" I am obligated to do?
OM: Having rights MEANS having responsibilities towards others.
I agree.
NM: Responsibilities imply entitlements (at some level).
OM: For instance?
NM: Once you have explained your first statement, you will have answered your own question. And, no, responsibilities do not equal "responsibility not to XXX." You are confusing the limits of your liberty, with your responsibilities. They are different things.
You have missed the point, as usual. You have responsibilities TO ACT in certain ways, not just to avoid certain types of action.
Since you argue that moral/ethical claims are not logically derived propositions, then you undercut your very argument. The moral subjectivist can make no claim to rights or responsibilities, since they hold that all such "oughts" are only the emotions or preferences of the individual.
"But that is because you are only discussing half of the issue"
If you can get to a conclusion of positive obligations, through logical deduction, let me know. Until then, I think it's fair to rest on the negative obligations that we more generally acknowledge.
This is a discussion of ethics and morality, not logic.
This is a discussion of ethics and morality, not logic.
Then please explain to us how you logically concluded these "responsibilities", which are basically ethical claims (things one OUGHT to do).
Then please explain to us how you logically concluded these "responsibilities", which are basically ethical claims (things one OUGHT to do).
Neither rights nor responsibilities have logical support. They are normative ethical claims. People ought to be allowed life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness/property. People ought to behave in certain ways. These are not logically derived principles.
Neither rights nor responsibilities have logical support. They are normative ethical claims. People ought to be allowed life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness/property. People ought to behave in certain ways. These are not logically derived principles.
Normative ethical claims are still logically derived propositions. Your "oughts" are either derived from logical propositions or they are meaningless statements that have no credible support for being proposed. Such propositions may or may not be true, but they are derived from logic and reasoning.
Tell Tibor Machan, Thomas Nagel, Aristotle, G.E. Moore, etc. that moral/ethical propositions are not logical.
Tell Tibor Machan, Thomas Nagel, Aristotle, G.E. Moore, etc. that moral/ethical propositions are not logical.
You seem to be mistaking the axiomatic with the derived. While, "people have a responsibility to get vaccinated" is derived, "people have both rights" or "people have responsibilities" are axiomatic.
since they hold that all such "oughts" are only the emotions or preferences of the individual.
Nope. They are moral obligations.
This is a discussion of ethics and morality, not logic.
I do not subscribe to your religion.
I do not subscribe to your religion.
Morality does not equal religion.
Ethics does not require religion.
You're making normative assertions about the way humans ought to behave. If those assertions are not derived via logic and reason, then they are the product of superstition, i.e. religion.
If being confronted with that fact bothers or upsets you, I don't really give a shit.
You're making normative assertions about the way humans ought to behave. If those assertions are not derived via logic and reason, then they are the product of superstition, i.e. religion.
If being confronted with that fact bothers or upsets you, I don't really give a shit.
Does it bother you that it doesn't bother nor upset me? Why would I be bothered or upset?
Actually, there is a Libertopian way of handling this; allow property owners to exclude anyone not vaccinated from their property. Most diseases require fairly close proximity to spread from person to person, so this would prevent transmission of the disease on such properties.
This only breaks down when we introduce public property to the equation...but then it's not the only element of hardcore libertarianism that breaks down at that point.
I have to finish it, but Willrich's City of Courts was similarly interesting in examining the autonomy/community tension in the Progressive Era.
I think one way to solve it would be to make those that refused vaccines for non-medical reasons economically and potentially criminally liable for death, injury and medical bills of those they infected. It's one thing if your opposition to vaccines leaves you exposed to some disease you haven't witnessed in 50 years because your predecessors were smarter than you (things like smallpox, polio and the whooping cough are pretty out of mind and to some are theoretical diseases from yesteryear), it's another thing when you're liable for medical bills and deaths and personal insurance is high because you're unvaccinated.
This addresses the force issue and makes people liable for the damage they cause. This is purely off of the top of my head and probably needs refining because there are all sorts of unintended consequences, but it's a decent start that balances personal liberty and makes people responsible for the damage they do.
That seems like a good approach. Though determining who infected who may end up being too difficult.
No one forces me to buy car insurance (I think I may live in the only state that does not do so), but I am damn well going to at least carry liability insurance because driving exposes you to a lot of potential liability.
Yeah, but your insurance won't take to kindly to covering you if you have the risk of being the human version of the monkey from Outbreak. The vaccine will be a lot cheaper than your premiums.
So don't bother determining who infected whom. If you're infected, and you're not vaccinated, then you can get to help pay for everyone who's infected after their vaccination failed. After all, you're clearly not living in a hermetically sealed bubble if you got infected in the first place, and any interaction that would have let you catch those germs would also have let you spread them.
Eh, but this is probably unacceptable to both the authoritarians and the libertarians. Mandatory liability insurance (necessary to avoid free riders from hurting innocents without being able to make them whole) will probably be too much for the latter, and anything short of pretending that we're preventing every preventable malady is too much for the former.
think one way to solve it would be to make those that refused vaccines for non-medical reasons economically and potentially criminally liable for death, injury and medical bills of those they infected.
Terrible idea. How do you prove that?
How about some Camus, speaking of plagues?
The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.
What I wonder about is why no one is worried about the poor, persecuted smallpox virus and the other viruses that may soon join it. The poor thing is nearly totally extinct. A unique expression of life on earth has been snuffed out forever.
Viruses have rights too.
(Sorry, couldn't help it)
Yeah, but isw a virus truly a living organism since it cant function on its own??? What we really need to protect is the endangered bacterias, thats where we need to allocate the resources!
so many fat fingered keys in that post /sigh.
You could take a little breather, ya' blowhard.
I'm so glad we don't have liberty and the government can force people to take vaccines against deadly contagious diseases. This is where I think we should have never fought the civil war and just let the conservatives live in another country. This way they wouldn't need to take vaccines.
....is wearing thin, Chained up Alice.
Don't overlook all the modern, anti-science, anti-vaxxer HuffPost Whores, who would hardly describe themselves as conservative.