The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Philosophy
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Philosophy Religions, schools of thought, matters of importance and navel-gazing

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-08-2007, 06:44 PM   #1
Aliantha
trying hard to be a better person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16,493
I think people who live in cultures where millions of people from past generations have gone to the trouble of immunising their children, not only for the benefit of their children (as a personal choice) and for the betterment of society (as a moral choice), and then choose not to immunise their children are being incredibly short sighted.

Quote:
My reasonable reaction is that there would never be a smooth transition from a fully or mostly immunized population to a non- or lowly immunized population; so sure, there would be a transitory period whereby disease levels may appear to rise. But that would have to also take into account the many other factors that go into assessing levels, including but not limited to a rise in inaccurate diagnoses based on a larger but not necessarily more accurate awareness of disease/symptoms. Or even a rise in accurate diagnoses based on ever-improving awareness of disease/symptoms.
Have a look at the number of people who died from diseases like tetanus and polio during pre-immunisation days before you make any claims about mild rises in disease resulting from populations who all of a sudden choose to stop immunising.

With regard to the possible chance of your child having serious side effects from immunisation, it's all a crock of shit if you even take your child in the car with you because I'm telling you now as a fact, that your child is more likely to suffer damaging side effects from a car accident than they are from immunisation.

We live in a society that has worked miracles to make our lives healthier. If you choose not to take advantage of that then that's your personal choice, but before too long we'll see parents being sued by their partners or getting court orders for immunisation over this issue, if in fact it hasn't already happened.
__________________
Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber
Aliantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2007, 09:10 PM   #2
vivant
New Kid in School
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha View Post
I think people who live in cultures where millions of people from past generations have gone to the trouble of immunising their children, not only for the benefit of their children (as a personal choice) and for the betterment of society (as a moral choice), and then choose not to immunise their children are being incredibly short sighted.
Short-sighted, how so? Millions of people from past generations have always "gone to the trouble" to do many things that seemed right at the time for the benefit of children and/or the betterment of society; but many things came and continue to come under scrutiny as society modernized/-es. It's been the case for centuries, no?

Morality is a trickier topic, and the main interest of my original post. I do feel a certain morality towards society, as indicated by many of the personal choices I make day-to-day. However at the end of the day - an d I've already admitted my myopia here, my primary responsibility (and therefore my moral obligation) rest with my children. I won't do what I personally perceive to be wrong to them, for the socially perceived better good.

Quote:
Have a look at the number of people who died from diseases like tetanus and polio during pre-immunisation days before you make any claims about mild rises in disease resulting from populations who all of a sudden choose to stop immunising.
I have. It's tragic. Any death is tragic, really. But while we're discussing the numbers, let me also say that this is exactly what I meant when I said earlier that we all interpret the same data differently. Because when I examine the numbers I see that diseases were already experiencing a natural (if mild) decline when immunization became all the rage. Did people still die? Sure. It sucks all around, but .. people die. And need to die. Disease serves a purpose, however ugly a purpose that is.

I ask, then: if our moral obligation is to eradicate all disease, and/or to "take advantage" of the "miracles" that "make our lives healthier" ... what is our moral obligation in addressing issues that stem from compensating for the rise in population and resulting further taxing of resources?

Quote:
We live in a society that has worked miracles to make our lives healthier. If you choose not to take advantage of that then that's your personal choice, but before too long we'll see parents being sued by their partners or getting court orders for immunisation over this issue, if in fact it hasn't already happened.
It's a possibility, and I agree - a sad one at that. It's an important conversation to have before bringing a child into the world together, for sure.
__________________
***** we interrupt this broadcast to introduce Vivian ... recommended by 3 out of 4 online forums
vivant is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.