Thorn
Member
Are you talking about flu shots? I am at quite a loss to understand just what you are getting at here as you have been extremely nonspecific here.
Are you talking about flu shots? I am at quite a loss to understand just what you are getting at here as you have been extremely nonspecific here.
It would depend again. You are not required to be there, as the children are at the schools.
If every adult had to go to the same place at the same time and be with others who may be endangering them, there would be the same requisite.
C
Cancel1
Guest
what about work?
Thorn
Member
This touches on something that has been gnawing at me for a while. I'm fully in favor of penalizing people who go to work sick and infect other people. It seems to be either some displaced sense of responsibility, or in some cases economic necessity, but the economic toll is much greater when a bacterium or virus is spread among a commuter or workplace population. Not to mention the misery.
What about work? It isn't a publicly owned facility that you are required to attend along with every other person of a certain age group.
If your work decided you must have these certain inoculations to work there, then you would have to have them or find employment elsewhere.
I make my displeasure clear when they come in infected. I find it irresponsible and if I was employing them I would require they take the time off rather than infect the rest of my employees. Paying them for that time would wind up costing me less in the long run.
You have to balance it with knowledge though, doctors' notes and such, so people don't take advantage of you.
C
Cancel1
Guest
thank goodness my job doesnt require it. in fact you get in trouble if you don't come in, they would rather have people there sick then miss work. However, just because most people believe in medicine or doctors doesn't mean everyone does, it seems like there should be a legal right to protect people who dont believe in it. But I guess the majority will always rule what dictates law.
Since there are alternatives, no right is infringed while the other individuals are protected against what can be considered a foolish choice to some, a necessary one to others.
Whether or not people believe in doctors it is clear that without vaccinations polio would still wreak havoc in our nation. All one has to do is look at the places where the people were convinced that the vaccinations were bad for them. Polio crippling so many, people dying of normal things like Measles...
So long as there are options, I'm also glad that they allow you to choose not to get your kids vaccinated. You can choose to educate using online public schools, you can educate them yourself by home schooling, you can choose to pay for a private school, all while allowing the others to maintain their health and well being.
Thorn
Member
Hopefully some intelligence will prevail in such matters. As ib1 said, it's a matter of public health. Do you recall some months ago when a prospective groom travelled halfway around the world for his ceremony, illegally, fully knowing that he had a treatment-resistant form of tuberculosis? That is, BTW, potentially fatal and highly contagious. Should he have had the right to endanger everyone with whom he came into contact on that trip? There are sound medical reasons for such laws.
Someone who doesn't "believe" in medicine or doctors (e.g. Christian Scientists) will have to live within the framework of public health laws and regulations so as not to endanger others. That may require a certain amount of isolation. I don't know where this saying originated but to haul out an old tried-and-true, "Your rights end where mine begin", and vice versa. It is accepted policy in our society that one individual does not have the right to pose a public health danger to others.
C
Cancel3
Guest
One of the former owners of my company would always tell the workers "if you are too sick to work you better be sick enough to be in the hospital".
Consequently, people came in to work with the flu and all manner of illnesses.
Pissed me off.
Thorn
Member
I know. It would have served him well (and the company's costs) to sit down and work out how much he lost in performance. If you go in somewhat sick, you're already contagious, and will also infect others, whose performance will also suffer. The stresses of going to work and trying to do a job when you're sick could well make you a LOT worse and require you to take off a lot more time than would have been the case if you'd stayed home in the beginning. (I have an early research background in stress and disease and still am in touch with my mentor from those days).
C
Cancel1
Guest
some people who are given a terminal disease sentence turn to alternative holistic healing, or prefer not to have manmade chemicals put in there body so they use alternative natural medicine, or turn to prayer. I dont think anythings wrong with that.
There isn't really. But if it is communicable and avoidable they should maintain a separation from others and take responsibility for the reality of the disease.
Measles are completely avoidable, there is no reason to die from such a disease when a vaccination would have kept you safe. If you have it, you shouldn't go out and seek others to infect, or assume that no others were the same and chose not to get the vaccination.
Some believe that vaccinations cause autism and attempt to avoid them because of that, however because of that we have seen a return of some diseases that had previously been eradicated from the US. One must understand the consequences of their action, even if it does mean some slight hardships.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Nope.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Well if a large number of people don't get immunized it can create a certain population of people who can become breeding grounds for super-bugs that can resist vaccinations, and that compromises the health of the population. So under certain circumstances I could see requiring immunizations.
But if the medical question involved is only one that could possibly hurt yourself, and you don't force it on your children, then fine.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I certainly think there's something wrong with it. It's just not my business if the only person they could possibly hurt is themselves.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Also, as I said before, in certain instances it can create a breeding ground compromise the effectiveness of vaccinations. Right?
And children aren't old enough to decide religious questions like that either. The only people who should get a right not to take a vaccine is the parents.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It's perfectly reasonable for the majority to dictate whenever the health of the majority is at stake. Not taking vaccines isn't wholy an individual harm.
And you are being ignorant when you say you "don't want that in" your "body". The immune response is perfectly natural, and it's not like things are specifically better just because they're "natural" anyway. A synthetic version of a chemical that occurs in nature works exactly the same.
Socrtease
Verified User
So far, all we have talked about is vaccinations. However, some parents have withheld medical treatment for diseases or blood transfusions for their children when it is against their religious beliefs. In some, JW's for instance, taking blood is a hell worthy event. Why should we allow the state to, in the minds of the people involved, including the child, condemn that child to hell? If a family believes that medical attention will violate their religious rights, and condemn their child to hell, the state should not force that on them. And just a reminder, I am an athiest, so I have no dog in this fight.
C
Cancel1
Guest
I am no religion either, I obey the law as it stands. But when I was a kid my parents didn't believe in doctors and so I never went. I never had shots or even saw a doctor until I got married and then my husband insisted I get shots and see a doctor. But I just remember that it was real controversial when people found out my parents wouldnt take me to doctors.