Quote:
Originally Posted by Speakeasy
Personally, there's just something that doesn't sit well with me when it comes to "forced inoculations" and "the government". We've had public schooling in this country for about 180 years or so without the need for forcing students to get vaccinated in order to attend class. From what I understand, there hasn't been any mass deadly outbreaks in schools due to this.
The article says that as of now, there are about 1,000 students who haven't attended school in over a month due to this policy. Sure, we could say it's the parent's fault for not getting their kids vaccinated, but I think the responsibility lies on the government here. After all, they're the ones who implemented this policy.
I dunno. I just always get weary when government 'forces' people to do things.
|
As a child, I recall my parents needing to show proof of vaccinations for their children to be able to attend school (public and private). However, I don't recall jail being threated. Truant laws were on the books and that was a time when schools actually reported truants as a habit. As Mrs. M stated, polio had reared it's ugly head a decade or two before. Perhaps because of these inoculations, polio is a relatively rare disease in the US and other countries that require them. Forced inoculations led to the near eradication of small pox.
Although one could look at this with the Darwin approach, I don't believe that small pox would have reached it's level of near eradication had the inoculations not been forced.
Other than for medical reasons or for reasons of conflict with religious beliefs (cases of both are few), and the fact that the government will foot the bill for those who cannot afford to inoculate, I see this as a small price to pay in personal freedom for the greater good. As one of the roles of government is to protect us (not from ourselves), I see it as not a high price to pay for a healthy society.
However, if one were to ask where the line is drawn for this view, I draw the line at a 30 minute time requirement and the potential of a sore upper arm for half of a day. If one were to say that we should outlaw trans-fats, for example, because it's good for the public health, I draw the line there. That requires a lifestyle change and obesity is not a passive disease. I also agree with no smoking regulations, with reason, since that is a passive exposure to a health hazard. I also agree with many EPA and OSHA regs, as others can be unwittingly exposed to hazards due to the negligence of others, thus affecting the general health of others who wouldn't have a choice in being exposed to these hazards if the regs weren't in place.
It's a balance, as some inherent rights will conflict with others. Some may call this a liberal view, yet I have never claimed to be 100% conservative, 100% liberal, or 100% libertatarian.
