This is a topic about which I am slightly confused. In a society where individual rights are respected, and the government’s sole duty is to ensure this goal through abolishing the use of force amongst citizens, would there be such things as mandatory inoculations?
My knee-jerk response to the idea is that it would be wrong to force people to get a vaccine for a certain disease. But then, if one had a certain disease that could be easily spread to other people, wouldn’t it be the government’s job to ensure that the rights of other people are respected, and thus stop the spread of that disease by forcing people to get a vaccination?
Or would the proper role of the government in this case be to simply quarantine the person who is carrying and could spread the disease, so that he could not give it to anybody else?
I’m curious as to how this relates to hereditary diseases: If it could be determined that a person would certainly pass on a certain gene or suite of genes, say, those for Alzheimer’s, should the government force people to undergo gene therapy so that they do not spread that disease to other people, or should it “quarantine” people to stop them from spreading it (ie, not allow them to reproduce)?
(… of course, that question might present some false alternative, so I apologize ahead of time if that’s what I did. If that’s the case, what other possibility is there that I am not considering?)
This is a topic about which I am slightly confused. In a society where individual rights are respected, and the government’s sole duty is to ensure this goal through abolishing the use of force amongst citizens, would there be such things as mandatory inoculations?
My knee-jerk response to the idea is that it would be wrong to force people to get a vaccine for a certain disease. But then, if one had a certain disease that could be easily spread to other people, wouldn’t it be the government’s job to ensure that the rights of other people are respected, and thus stop the spread of that disease by forcing people to get a vaccination?
Or would the proper role of the government in this case be to simply quarantine the person who is carrying and could spread the disease, so that he could not give it to anybody else?
Quarantine. There is no basis for them to use such force on those that don’t have such diseases and thus infringe on no people’s rights. Only those with such diseases would infringe on rights if not quarantined.
I’m curious as to how this relates to hereditary diseases: If it could be determined that a person would certainly pass on a certain gene or suite of genes, say, those for Alzheimer’s, should the government force people to undergo gene therapy so that they do not spread that disease to other people, or should it “quarantine” people to stop them from spreading it (ie, not allow them to reproduce)?
(… of course, that question might present some false alternative, so I apologize ahead of time if that’s what I did. If that’s the case, what other possibility is there that I am not considering?)
It should leave them free, iniating no such use of force. Heriditary diseases have a lower than 100% case of it being passed on, making them an “might”. The government has no right to punish people because they might harm people. If they did they would be justified in doing horrible things like creating and enforcing curfews.
Upton, do you have some particular disease(s) in mind? I would think that with most diseases, an unvaccinated person would not be a threat to someone who has been vaccinated.
I think a more common argument for mandatory vaccination laws is about the child’s own rights. (i.e., Does the child has the right to be protected against the disease?) This argument would fall under the more general question of the rights of (of limits on) parental decision-making, when it comes to their children’s health.
I’m actually thinking along the lines of hereditary diseases. What if a child is diagnosed in utero with some terrible disease? Would the parents, by bringing that child into existence, be creating a victim? Or does that depend on how the parents treat the child after it’s born?
This is a topic about which I am slightly confused. In a society where individual rights are respected, and the government’s sole duty is to ensure this goal through abolishing the use of force amongst citizens, would there be such things as mandatory inoculations?
No. It is not the government’s place to act in loco parentis in any way shape or form for anyone with functioning adult parents or legal guardians. Even if you could provide all the absolutely watertight proof in the world that they work 100% without side-effects, and even assuming nobody had any religious objections etc, it would still be completely wrong for government to force people to do things “for their own good.” If you allow that then you are sanctioning the principle of the government doing anything to people against their will “for their own good,” and that is the road to the most hateful and intractable types of totalitarianism both by those who really meant it and those who are using it as a cover.
I’m not touching the rights-of-children debate.
But then, if one had a certain disease that could be easily spread to other people, wouldn’t it be the government’s job to ensure that the rights of other people are respected, and thus stop the spread of that disease by forcing people to get a vaccination? Or would the proper role of the government in this case be to simply quarantine the person who is carrying and could spread the disease, so that he could not give it to anybody else?
You are saying that people who choose to go about un-vaccinated, and thus vulnerable to these diseases, might somehow be entitled to get the government to force other people to be vaccinated so that the first people are less likely to catch diseases from the second people. Don’t you spot some problems with that?
I’m curious as to how this relates to hereditary diseases
It doesn’t - or at least not directly enough to warrant discussion in the same thread.
JJM