Social Obligations & Immunization

[TheMercenary]

I think if we stopped all mandatory immunizations and allowed people to get a number of really nasty communicable life threatening diseases it would help our current population problems and assist in stemming the tide of global warming. We could do more for less people and that might be a good thing. Now if you choose not to immunize and do get a communicable disease you will need to be immediately quarantined to a secure militarized area similar to Gitmo until you spontaneously recover without medical assistance or just die off and then we would incinerate your body at no cost. Yea, I am all for the idea, where do I sign you all up?

[Aliantha]

lol...nice post there Merc

[vivant]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I think people who live in cultures where millions of people from past generations have gone to the trouble of immunising their children, not only for the benefit of their children (as a personal choice) and for the betterment of society (as a moral choice), and then choose not to immunise their children are being incredibly short sighted.

Short-sighted, how so? Millions of people from past generations have always "gone to the trouble" to do many things that seemed right at the time for the benefit of children and/or the betterment of society; but many things came and continue to come under scrutiny as society modernized/-es. It's been the case for centuries, no?

Morality is a trickier topic, and the main interest of my original post. I do feel a certain morality towards society, as indicated by many of the personal choices I make day-to-day. However at the end of the day - an d I've already admitted my myopia here, my primary responsibility (and therefore my moral obligation) rest with my children. I won't do what I personally perceive to be wrong to them, for the socially perceived better good.

Have a look at the number of people who died from diseases like tetanus and polio during pre-immunisation days before you make any claims about mild rises in disease resulting from populations who all of a sudden choose to stop immunising.

I have. It's tragic. Any death is tragic, really. But while we're discussing the numbers, let me also say that this is exactly what I meant when I said earlier that we all interpret the same data differently. Because when I examine the numbers I see that diseases were already experiencing a natural (if mild) decline when immunization became all the rage. Did people still die? Sure. It sucks all around, but .. people die. And need to die. Disease serves a purpose, however ugly a purpose that is.

I ask, then: if our moral obligation is to eradicate all disease, and/or to "take advantage" of the "miracles" that "make our lives healthier" ... what is our moral obligation in addressing issues that stem from compensating for the rise in population and resulting further taxing of resources?

We live in a society that has worked miracles to make our lives healthier. If you choose not to take advantage of that then that's your personal choice, but before too long we'll see parents being sued by their partners or getting court orders for immunisation over this issue, if in fact it hasn't already happened.

It's a possibility, and I agree - a sad one at that. It's an important conversation to have before bringing a child into the world together, for sure.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by vivant

Smallpox has been successfully treated homeopathically for centuries.

Might you have a source for such a claim? Any studies of areas that had massive outbreaks of smallpox that stopped the spread through the use of such "homeopathic" treatments? Basically there is no treatment of the disease, only prevention. If 3 out of 10 people die from the most serious forms of the disease I would say those are odds I would not want to bet against. Would you take the chance if your kids were going to get it and die?

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox...ease-facts.asp

[jinx]

Your kids are vaccinated against smallpox Merc? Man, you're old...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by jinx

Your kids are vaccinated against smallpox Merc? Man, you're old...

No, but I am.

And Anthrax, yellow fever, and host of other stuff.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

lol...nice post there Merc

Sorry if you don't like my post, but I don't like other people putting me and my family at risk because of their choices. But hey, that is just me.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No, but I am.

And Anthrax, yellow fever, and host of other stuff.

Then, what are you talking about here? Doesn't make sense...

If 3 out of 10 people die from the most serious forms of the disease I would say those are odds I would not want to bet against. Would you take the chance if your kids were going to get it and die?

[Aliantha]

Short-sighted, how so? Millions of people from past generations have always "gone to the trouble" to do many things that seemed right at the time for the benefit of children and/or the betterment of society; but many things came and continue to come under scrutiny as society modernized/-es. It's been the case for centuries, no?

It's short sighted because you currently have the luxury of saying, I'm not going to immunise my child because the chances of him/her catching a particular disease are so slim I'll take that risk. If previous generations had taken that view, then I'll bet you'd be lining up at the door to get your kids jabbed first before they had a chance to get sick and die of something preventable. This follows that if everyone stopped immunising today, in a couple of generations time, we'd be back where we started from.

Any death is tragic, really. But while we're discussing the numbers, let me also say that this is exactly what I meant when I said earlier that we all interpret the same data differently. Because when I examine the numbers I see that diseases were already experiencing a natural (if mild) decline when immunization became all the rage.

That could also be attributed to the normal flux of disease. There is not enough empirical data to know either way.

It's a possibility, and I agree - a sad one at that. It's an important conversation to have before bringing a child into the world together, for sure.

Yeah, and what happens when one or the other gets swayed by selfish arguments like the one you've presented after they've already discussed and agreed on a course of action?

[vivant]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

And one other thing also, if you think the risk of catching the disease is lower than the risks associated with the immunisation, why do you think that is?

It's because a few generations ago the risks of catching the disease were far higher than the risks associated with immunisation.

What that means for those people now considering not immunising their children is that they're going to send society back to the times when parents lived in fear of their healthy child being stuck down by some terrible disease, only now they'll have the guilt of knowing they could have prevented it.

The obvious retort here goes back to "Herd Mentality" ... so long as you have faith in your immunizations, and maintain a majority of the population then "society" won't go back to those times, only those people who choose not to immunize will/may succumb to said terrible diseases.

But I think that is a bullshit answer, so I'll retort with this instead:

How did people survive disease and outbreak before the advent of popular immunization? The weak died; they always do whether it's disease. poverty. internet forums. The strong survived, and became naturally immune. They then passed these natural immunities down to their descendants via genes, and even through social behaviors such as breastfeeding.

Statistically, a "healthy child" would survive a "terrible disease" ... a weak child (whether recognized as such, or not) would not. This is true even within the immunized population; side effects DO happen, however statistically minute you desire to present them as. (I don't care either way, as it isn't my reason for not immunizing). But I'll remove my evol. biologist hat for just a second to ask for clarification -

What (other than immunization schedules) can share attribution to the decrease in disease? Increased hygiene. (As opposed to over-hygiene as seems the case of late) Better standards of living. Less crowding. Even for someone who supports immunization, surely you acknowledge that the decrease in disease isn't derived SOLELY from immunization ... right?

[Aliantha]

Nope, there's no herd mentality. You may think you're the only person capable of making an informed decision, but you're not. You'll have to get over that one in your own time.

you take your pot luck with your children and just thank god you live in a society where these diseases are not prevalent due to the dilligence of people with more sense.

That's all I've got to say on this thread. I think I've made my point very clear.

[vivant]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Might you have a source for such a claim? Any studies of areas that had massive outbreaks of smallpox that stopped the spread through the use of such "homeopathic" treatments? Basically there is no treatment of the disease, only prevention. If 3 out of 10 people die from the most serious forms of the disease I would say those are odds I would not want to bet against. Would you take the chance if your kids were going to get it and die?

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox...ease-facts.asp

Thuja occidentalis. I may have spelled that incorrectly, it's been awhile. And I stand corrected; in reviewing the quoted box I see that I mistyped - it has been used successfully to treat EXPOSURE to smallpox and reactions from the live vaccine.

My ex-husband has been vaccinated for the same diseases. It's been a few years, though, but at the time the recommendation was NOT to immunize the entire population for smallpox. Is smallpox now a recommended immunization for civilians?

If 3 out of 10 people become infected with smallpox, the recommendation at the time of my ex-husband's last shot was to isolate the outbreak. Vaccinate those who came into contact with the infected; then vaccinate those who came into contact with those who came into contact with the infected. There was a 3-5 day window from the point of exposure, where the smallpox vaccine was believed effective. Maybe that has changed in the few years since we were married, I don't know. I don't lose sleep over smallpox. Or my ex-husband

As Aliantha points out, we take chances with our kids every day. Preventable chances, be they car rides or immunizations or exposure to disease. 3:10 seems a safe gamble to me, even if the stakes are higher I still feel comfortable with the numbers.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by jinx

Then, what are you talking about here? Doesn't make sense...

General statement about the use of vaccines. I know we don't vaccinate our kids against small pox, yet.

[Aliantha]

Hey Merc, are you having trouble taking my posts at face value today?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by vivant

Is smallpox now a recommended immunization for civilians?

If 3 out of 10 people become infected with smallpox, the recommendation at the time of my ex-husband's last shot was to isolate the outbreak. Vaccinate those who came into contact with the infected; then vaccinate those who came into contact with those who came into contact with the infected. There was a 3-5 day window from the point of exposure, where the smallpox vaccine was believed effective. Maybe that has changed in the few years since we were married, I don't know. I don't lose sleep over smallpox. Or my ex-husband

As Aliantha points out, we take chances with our kids every day. Preventable chances, be they car rides or immunizations or exposure to disease. 3:10 seems a safe gamble to me, even if the stakes are higher I still feel comfortable with the numbers.

No it has not changed. We take our chances with our kids every day but that does not give you the right to take chances with other people by risking that your kid may get a communicable disease and pass it on to others.