Found via Chris Snowdon, Michael Kelly, evil totalitarian.
There is an irrefutable case to be made for requiring people to be vaccinated against diseases that threaten public health. Whether a democratic society would ever allow individuals to be held down against their will and have a needle stuck in them is questionable. But social and economic sanctions, like those applied in the United States could be introduced – benefits might be affected, choice of school or employment might be restricted. Society simply should not be prepared to indulge the misinformed fantasies of ignorant people.
Unfortunately, while UK and Scottish Government policies are clearly prepared to push the promotion of healthy lifestyle policies to the limit, the National Health Service – which administers many of these policies – does not always set the best example. The sight of a grossly overweight nurse fills me with disgust. However, for many overweight patients, she may serve as a comfort and a validation of their own bad diet. Workers across the health services should be required to be non-smokers and with an acceptable BMI. If necessary, legislation should be introduced to allow contracts of employment to be so written.
The long-term answer is education. But how long to educate a public eager to follow any scare story it comes across on the internet and unwilling to accept establishment advice based on good science? Fluoridation of the water supply triggered the same kind of hysterical opposition when the only effect it has – verified over decades – is to reduce caries in the mouths of the most deprived of our children.
That example should haves served as a warning that the public cannot distinguish between good science and bad research, cannot evaluate risk. They must sacrifice some of their civil rights for their own good and that of the community.
That this man is beyond evil is there in his own words. How dare he? How fucking dare he decide what is in our best interests and decide in his planet sized hubris to assert that we cannot decide for ourselves what is junk science and what is not? How the fucking fuckitty fuck dare this nasty, reprehensible excuse for a man decide what is in the common good? Ah, yes, one of the most chilling phrases from the totalitarian handbook for the suppression of our liberties “the common good”. People like this were the ones who joined the death squads so beloved of Stalin and his ilk – all for the common good, of course.
Scum, evil scum.
Again, there in his own words, education is the answer, but apparently not one he’s prepared to wait for.
However, the end result of proper education is people with an ability to evaluate logically, and since real life isn’t usually unambiguous or clear cut, tends to result in a wide range of differing opinions, all of which can be defended logically and make sense to the people who hold them. You don’t necessarily reduce the range of positions held, you just find that those positions are much better defended.
If you’re of a totalitarian bent then, much better to have an ignorant yet compliant populace that does what it’s told. All for its own good, naturally.
For the record, I’m of the opinion that vaccination against childhood diseases is a very good idea, with the benefits vastly outweighing the risks, but the right of others to think otherwise is the price of a free society. Besides, not being a medical professional my ability to evaluate the evidence only goes so far, so maybe they’re right and I’m wrong.
My position on vaccination is the same – in general it’s a good idea, but not always. Swine flu was an example of the latter.
“Society simply should not be prepared to indulge the misinformed fantasies of ignorant people.”
Aren’t we overlooking the fact that medical advice changes by the minute? In the Forties & Fifties, doctors were prescribing smoking as a weight- loss option! If you refused, they could hold you down and stick a dad in your mouth, I guess, according to this cretin.
“they could hold you down and stick a dad in your mouth”
A what ?!?!?! 😯
Please tell me that’s a typo…please tell me that’s a typo…it has to be a typo….
/traumatised
Bloody autocorrect on the iPhone! It was supposed to be ‘stick a FAG in your mouth’…
Errr. Is that any better? 😆
“Errr. Is that any better? 😆”
😐 ………. 😆
I tried to keep a straight face…I really did…stoppit, you’re killing me 😆
There is absolutely nothing new in this.
“The Vaccination Act of 1853 ordered mandatory vaccination for infants up to 3 months old, and the Act of 1867 extended this age requirement to 14 years, adding penalties for vaccine refusal. The laws were met with immediate resistance from citizens who demanded the right to control their bodies and those of their children.[3] The Anti Vaccination League and the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League formed in response to the mandatory laws, and numerous anti-vaccination journals sprang up”
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-anti-vaccination-movements
Of course that was in nice economically liberal Victorian England, which many Libertarian conservatives would now have us believe was the acme of freedom before all that nasty socialism kicked off.
I agree completely. What a revolting specimen. One reason that scare stories have impact is that public health in its pathetic attempts to justify its own existence through “evidence” has flooded the public domain with so much utter crap that nobody heeds even sensible research findings these days and people are quite prepared to believe highly unlikely links. The uncritical and incompetent mainstream media are their partners in crime and I single the BBC out as the major cause of public apathy towards health and science in the UK. Having said all of that,it is of course completely unacceptable to force people into adopting health measures, even if as is the case with MMR, the science suggests those measures make sense.
Having said all of that,it is of course completely unacceptable to force people into adopting health measures, even if as is the case with MMR, the science suggests those measures make sense
If vaccination is to be compulsory then the case for it needs to be based on very strong public health evidence. Simply being a sensible measure for the individual’s own health is not good enough. If the disease is extremely virulent and hazardous to public health then I can see a case for compulsory vaccination to stop its spread.
Surely well informed people would want vaccination in such circumstances and the law would be pretty pointless as 100% enforcement would be impossible in any case. As you point out above, compulsory schemes tend to arouse suspicion and promote resistance so I would argue that informed choice is the better route to take. The problem with that is that we no longer know what to believe thanks to the dishonesty that is actively promoted by some elements of the public health industry.
People take a view on MMR based on their perceptions of the risks involved. The fact that those perceptions are influenced by maverick medics riding their personal hobbyhorses and an ill-informed unethical media is in my view unfortunate.
As you point out above, compulsory schemes tend to arouse suspicion and promote resistance
One of the reasons why they aroused suspicion and promoted resistance in the nineteenth century is because they were applied only against the poor. As I said, the hurdle should be set high but I cannot see how one can rule out compulsory vaccination or other breaches in civil liberties if the threat to public health were great enough.
When someone actions or lack of action poses a threat to the health of others then compulsion may be legitimate. The decision should not be taken lightly but you cannot rule it out entirely. I am sure that Mill would perfectly well understand that principle.
This is the problem with consequentialist arguments in favour of compulsion they always override individual liberty in favour of the collective good. The problem is that there is no such thing as a collective good there is only the good of individuals and that does not become a greater good with a greater number of individuals. I’m not very interested in whether or not Mill would have understood the principle, that’s no more than an appeal to authority, once you accept the idea that rights become diluted when applied to situations affecting large numbers then you might as well abandon the whole idea of individual rights completely.
This is the problem with consequentialist arguments in favour of compulsion they always override individual liberty in favour of the collective good
Regardless of whether “collective good” is a useful concept, it wholly unnecessary to invoke it here. All that is sufficient is to show that others may be harmed by the actions of the refusnik and whether the harm is sufficient in degree to justify the compulsion. It is no different in principle in requiring a person not to treat his garden as a midden which may lead to vermin infestation that may affect the health of his neighbours.
once you accept the idea that rights become diluted when applied to situations affecting large numbers then you might as well abandon the whole idea of individual rights completely
Absolutist twaddle. The whole of civil and criminal law is posited on the balancing of rights.
In the event of an epidemic, the people being harmed by refsuniks are other refusniks who have likewise chosen to take the risk. No problem, frankly.
You’ve missed my point, because you insist on thinking collectively, indeed you’re probably not capable of doing anything else. The balancing of rights in law is between individuals or at least it should be, unfortunately the criminal law has always tended to be collectivist in nature and is getting worse, civil law seems intent on following. Compulsory vaccination is very different from insisting that someone clean up their garden, the latter is requiring that an individual cease from a positive action affecting the well being of neighbours. Compulsory vaccination is also a positive action – in its worse form it would be legalised assault – designed to produce putative advantage to an anonymous group of people who may or may not benefit. It is analogous to taxation, the forceable removal of wealth from individuals designed to benefit the collective, as we know it doesn’t always work like that. Perhaps if you understood the difference between positive and negative rights you might come to see what is wrong with this idea.
Actually the garden analogy doesn’t even work on your terms. A filthy garden is very unlikely to be an actual health hazard, short of polluting the water supply which is hard to do these days. It’s a nuisance which has always been a civil tort and is thus properly a matter for the civil courts in an action between individuals.
Frankly, anything short of Ebola would be a step too far. And even then, the only people at risk are those who choose not to be vaccinated and others who have chosen the same risk. Look upon it as Darwin in action.
I always find it interesting that these evil-minded cretins blithely skate over the thorny question of who, exactly decides what comprises ‘The Common Good’.
The unspoken answer of course, is him; and/or creatures like him. ‘Ignorant people’ in this context means anyone who doesn’t think(?) like him and creatures like him.
Damn those filthy proles, with their ‘free will’, potato ‘crisps’ and ‘lager’…
would you happily go to a doctor who had not ben immunised against influenza during the usual epidemic?
Of course I would. Silly question.
Vaccination against flu is never a certain safeguard anyway, only a wise precaution for the vulnerable.
And for most of us, a waste of time given the various strains.
Just one, sightly awkward counter-example (ot of pure contrariness I suppose)
POLIO
Sub-saharan Africa etc …
“polio vaccination makes you sterile & is a christian plot”
As sveral peole have already said, the real answer is proper education – which is another whole can of worms, come to think of it ….
I’ve been going on about interfering busybodies too and it ties in with this evil muvver you mention. How to stop them though – that is the question.