1 edit
@no1marauder saidDeeming a person a threat to society is one thing. The government determining the remedy is another.
No.
Over 100 years ago the Supreme Court upheld a State law which " empowered the board of health of individual cities and towns to enforce mandatory, free vaccinations for adults over the age of 21 if the municipality determined it was necessary for the public health or safety of the community.[2]".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
A senten ...[text shortened]... dless of the injury that may be done to others.[/b]"[2]
Do you find such reasoning objectionable?
Vaccinations are very intrusive, something that I don't think the founding fathers would ever support.
Do you support forced sterilizations for unwed mothers on welfare? *intrusive*, but it works!
How about forced nicotine patches for smokers (2nd hand smoke)? And on and on...
@earl-of-trumps saidYour examples are fallacious; unwed mothers pose no danger to others like an infectious, deadly disease.
Deeming a person a threat to society is one thing. The government determining the remedy is another.
Vaccinations are very intrusive, something that I don't think the founding fathers would ever support.
Do you support forced sterilizations for unwed mothers on welfare? *intrusive*, but it works!
How about forced nicotine patches for smokers (2nd hand smoke)? And on and on...
There's a long history of mandatory measures in the US to control outbreaks of disease:
"The earliest recorded quarantines in the colonies were against smallpox, dating back at least to the 1620s. The first formal quarantine law enacted by one of the American colonies followed in 1647, in Massachusetts. By the early 18th century, Massachusetts added a law permitting local authorities to isolate ill people in separate houses.
After independence, coastal states commonly enacted quarantine laws requiring ships’ crews and passengers to remain aboard for a specified period before disembarking. In 1855, Louisiana authorized the Board of Health to establish a quarantine station 75 miles downriver from New Orleans, inspect incoming ships there and quarantine incoming passengers there as necessary."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/long-history-coercive-health-responses-american-law
-Removed-Oh, a nice debate. I do love ethics.
So, can a government enforce policies on individuals to create a safer or better environment for the masses?
Like traffic lights. School.
Seatbelts? That’s probably more down to insurance companies…
Speed limits.
Laws against theft, even if you’re starving?
Taxes?
Imprisonment?
Yeah. Let’s take that last one. Say person A rapes me. And I take revenge and murder A. I go to prison. Say in my revenge, I take out, accidentally, A’s whole family (burn down the house or something). Should I get a longer prison sentence?
Oh. I’m off-track. Uh, let’s see…
We know corona spreads faster with various mutations. Delta already influencing the easing of UK lockdown restrictions negatively.
So, bad for the economy, etc.
Does the economy weigh in heavily enough to impeach individual bodily privacy?
Personally… na.
The more corona spreads, the higher chance of mutations. The more mutations, the higher the chance of an increase in deadliness; an ability to circumvent vaccines.
The more people getting seriously ill, the more the healthcare is strained. The more people are going to die.
Can one argue that by not getting vaccinated you are personally helping to accidentally overload the system and accidentally kill people?
Yes. One probably can.
I don’t know if enforcement is the best method to achieve the needed goals, though.
This is about 1 group of workers. People who work with people who are must vulnerable to the disease.
Say it was a disease that targetted school kids. Do you think teachers should be forced to take the vaccine?
Aren’t there mandatory vaccines when travelling to certain countries?
God… where was I?
Oh. My answer to your question: yes. I think the government can make it mandatory for workers in various fields to take precautions; along the lines of health & safety. But, I think when it gets into personal bodily privacy (health falls under special category privacy laws in the GDPR), if the government wants to make it mandatory, they have the responsibility of offering an alternative job for workers who wish to refuse.
@no1marauder saidHaving vaccinated persons in close contact with vaccinated elderly increases the latter's risk.
Vaccinations reduce risk, but they can't eliminate it. Having non-vaccinated persons in close contact with even vaccinated elderly increases the latter's risk.
Life is risk.
2 edits
@no1marauder - quoted:
"' By the early 18th century, Massachusetts added a law permitting local authorities to isolate ill people in separate houses.'"
This is what I mean when I say that there are alternatives to actually injecting someone with an unsafe chemical.
And tell me, this law in your quote above surely was found unconstitutional, was it not? Because I Sure remember
when the not understood HI virus was first in America and killing all victims, there was sure talk about isolation
and there sure was talk as to why that was *unconstitutional*. Imagine that.
