Giving the people free choice might very well lead to what some believe is suboptimal outcomes. I believe coercive measures regarding decisions within the realm of our Natural Rights are usually a suboptimal outcome in and of themselves.
The answer to your objection lies in your own comment a couple of posts down the page that "some people vaccinated still get the disease". The fact that vaccination is not foolproof on an individual level means that establishing herd immunity is the only sure or likely way of eliminating a disease from a population; consequently, parents refusing to immunise their children are not only endangering their own children, but also other people's children - even those who have themselves been vaccinated. This is why your comparison with wearing a coat in freezing temperatures is inapposite; a man going out in winter inadequately clad is endangering only himself, not others. A more exact comparison might be with the banning of tobacco in public places due to the health risks posed by second-hand smoke (although the health risks of low vaccination takeup are probably more significant than those of passive smoking).
Of course if coercive measures are to be taken, they need to be justified by a compelling public interest, but I think it may be argued that such an interest exists in this case. It seems from the evidence I posted higher up this thread that the Supreme Court agrees with me, or at least, that it once agreed with me.
"Opt-out" presupposes that people are inclined to do something without any proof that they are. Therefore, I oppose such measures.
"Opt-out" doesn't change the available options - one is still free to refuse vaccination under such a scheme. So I can't see it at coercive in the sense that mandatory vaccination would be. Presumably in an "opt-out"-based society parents would be informed in advance that their children were going to be vaccinated and would be given time to withdraw the kids from the scheme if they objected. On that basis, is presumed consent really a significant act of coercion?
Originally posted by TeinosukeAs always, you regard people having a free choice as an insignificant quibble. I simply don't agree.
[b]Giving the people free choice might very well lead to what some believe is suboptimal outcomes. I believe coercive measures regarding decisions within the realm of our Natural Rights are usually a suboptimal outcome in and of themselves.
The answer to your objection lies in your own comment a couple of posts down the page that "some people vaccin ...[text shortened]... ey objected. On that basis, is presumed consent really a significant act of coercion?[/b]
Originally posted by TeinosukeIt's not; you should actually read the decision which is pretty much in line with the guidelines I gave. To wit:
Well then, it's good to know that the US Supreme Court is on my side.
it might be that an acknowledged power of a local community to protect itself against an epidemic threatening the safety of all might be exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public, as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe guidelines you gave were "in the case of infectious diseases which are readily capable of causing death or serious illness"; and you accepted that measles fell within the category of diseases that "might be debatable". So what precisely are we arguing about?
It's not; you should actually read the decision which is pretty much in line with the guidelines I gave.
Originally posted by no1marauderAh - thanks for adding that comment in the edit - that clarifies your position (and that of the Supreme Court).
it might be that an acknowledged power of a local community to protect itself against an epidemic threatening the safety of all might be exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public, as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons.
Originally posted by TeinosukeTo be fair, courts have been very deferential to state legislation regarding the public health and generally sustain them if they are rationally related to that purpose. That standard goes beyond mine.
Ah - thanks for adding that comment in the edit - that clarifies your position (and that of the Supreme Court).
Originally posted by sh76The doctor committed fraud. His original paper was a complete forgery without a shred of proof.
http://tinyurl.com/2g77mbu
[quote]A decade-old study authored by former British surgeon Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been deemed "fraudulent" in an editorial in the British Medical Journal.
The authors of the editorial say Wakefield--who was stripped of his medical license after Brian Deer of the Sunday Times exposed flaws in the study in 2004--manufactured p ...[text shortened]... t parents should be the ones to decide whether to incur the "risk" (if there is one)?
It's too bad people belived him. An investigative reporter just outed his fraud.
The dude should be in jail.