We are not talking about people being guinea pigs or getting tortured or undergoing other horrors
Yet. But we are talking about disregarding the lessons about the necessity of basic principles of autonomy in favor of “the greater good” and the patriarchalpaternalistic idea that the doctor and medical community knows better than the patient themselves what they should have done to their bodies, the exact same things that motivated the horrors that led to the development of modern medical ethics.
Context matters.
Yes, it does. It really does, and you are not taking it into account.
If we say that the state has a prima facie right to override the consent of the governed when it comes to their health, that is not merely a slippery slope, that is fully regressing and jumping down a hole we just got done climbing out of.
Do you trust the American government to make medical decisions for you? Do you think RFK and Doctor Oz should get a button that says “We can force people to do medical procedures”
There are arguments to be made for and against any kind of compulsory healthcare, but you need to remember what you are proposing.
the patriarchal idea that the doctor and medical community knows better than the patient themselves
Extremely funny way to put it. Most people who suffer from being denied available vaccines are children who’s parents (including the daddy patriarchs) have made the decision on their behalf. Not patients who made such a decision on their own volition.
The real question is whether parents have the right to deprive their children of safe and effective medical care. This is functionally a “parent’s rights”, not “patient’s rights” issue. Parents rights being here as in other situations a euphamism for treating children as property without rights at all, for whom society ought have no ability or obligation to intervene when the parents do not wish it.
the exact same things that motivated the horrors that led to the development of modern medical ethics.
Instead of making these vague allusions the darkness of history, why not be more specific?
To narrow things down and avoid having to write a whole thesis, specifically relevant here are population based interventions of a discrete nature. That is, not ongoing like fluoridated water or iodized salt which are both medicines given slowly and consistently without informed consent, I guess you also disapprove of. And not things done to only a few people based on criteria like a diagnosis. And not efforts made in the name of research. But we are talking about known efficacious procedures done once or a few times per lifetime, that every single person has done, except a teeny tiny number who have a bona fide medical reason that they can’t have it.
Please show your historical examples of how proposing that every single child should benefit from standard vaccines is “the exact same things” as promoted the most recent developments in medical ethics.
fully regressing and jumping down a hole we just got done climbing out of.
Comparing iodised salt and mandatory medical interventions is absurd.
But no, i am against neither. And I am also not against a mandatory vaccination policy. But I find the glee with which you people will totally disregard any question of morality surrounding it, and the entire field of medical ethics worrying.
Instead of making these vague allusions the darkness of history, why not be more specific?
Because the list of medical interventions done with disregard for patient autonomy can, and do, fill books?
The mandatory sterilisation of those deemed unfit parents in Scandivania, the nonconsensual medical procedures routinely performed on those deemed incompetent by virtue of disability all over the world, stipulating receiving social benefits on receiving medical procedures or taking specific medications.
Before that we had the enforced experimental treatment of the mentally ill, the medical experiments performed by duplicitous means on minorities or the poor, hysteria treatments, etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Extremely funny way to put it. Most people who suffer from being denied available vaccines are children who’s parents (including the daddy patriarchs) have made the decision on their behalf. Not patients who made such a decision on their own volition.
I actually meant to write paternalistic, but a wire got crossed somewhere. It works either way, since you zeroed in on it meaning the paternal role.
The thing is that the doctor taking on a paternal, and usually patriarchal and domineering role, deciding what is right for the patient overriding their decision is in fact a very important critique of the beginnings of modern medicine.
That is how you get doctors deciding to do further procedures on people they put in comas without asking, or test medications or procedures on uninformed patients.
For more mundane examples, its why people hate their asshole doctor who won’t listen to them.
The compliance model of medicine is outdated, it is taught specifically as an example of how you get bad results.
It is not just children who do not get vaccinated. We have people who have grown up unvaccinated who have children who will then also not get vaccinated, and if we make demands of a medical treatment they do not desire they may instead forego medical assistance entirely.
Now if you want to deal with the idea of a medical practitioner giving a willing child a vaccine that the parent does not wish them to get, that is an interesting ethical dilemma.
Yet. But we are talking about disregarding the lessons about the necessity of basic principles of autonomy in favor of “the greater good” and the
patriarchalpaternalistic idea that the doctor and medical community knows better than the patient themselves what they should have done to their bodies, the exact same things that motivated the horrors that led to the development of modern medical ethics.Yes, it does. It really does, and you are not taking it into account.
If we say that the state has a prima facie right to override the consent of the governed when it comes to their health, that is not merely a slippery slope, that is fully regressing and jumping down a hole we just got done climbing out of.
Do you trust the American government to make medical decisions for you? Do you think RFK and Doctor Oz should get a button that says “We can force people to do medical procedures”
There are arguments to be made for and against any kind of compulsory healthcare, but you need to remember what you are proposing.
Extremely funny way to put it. Most people who suffer from being denied available vaccines are children who’s parents (including the daddy patriarchs) have made the decision on their behalf. Not patients who made such a decision on their own volition.
The real question is whether parents have the right to deprive their children of safe and effective medical care. This is functionally a “parent’s rights”, not “patient’s rights” issue. Parents rights being here as in other situations a euphamism for treating children as property without rights at all, for whom society ought have no ability or obligation to intervene when the parents do not wish it.
Instead of making these vague allusions the darkness of history, why not be more specific?
To narrow things down and avoid having to write a whole thesis, specifically relevant here are population based interventions of a discrete nature. That is, not ongoing like fluoridated water or iodized salt which are both medicines given slowly and consistently without informed consent, I guess you also disapprove of. And not things done to only a few people based on criteria like a diagnosis. And not efforts made in the name of research. But we are talking about known efficacious procedures done once or a few times per lifetime, that every single person has done, except a teeny tiny number who have a bona fide medical reason that they can’t have it.
Please show your historical examples of how proposing that every single child should benefit from standard vaccines is “the exact same things” as promoted the most recent developments in medical ethics.
Which hole is that?
Comparing iodised salt and mandatory medical interventions is absurd.
But no, i am against neither. And I am also not against a mandatory vaccination policy. But I find the glee with which you people will totally disregard any question of morality surrounding it, and the entire field of medical ethics worrying.
Because the list of medical interventions done with disregard for patient autonomy can, and do, fill books? The mandatory sterilisation of those deemed unfit parents in Scandivania, the nonconsensual medical procedures routinely performed on those deemed incompetent by virtue of disability all over the world, stipulating receiving social benefits on receiving medical procedures or taking specific medications.
Before that we had the enforced experimental treatment of the mentally ill, the medical experiments performed by duplicitous means on minorities or the poor, hysteria treatments, etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.
I actually meant to write paternalistic, but a wire got crossed somewhere. It works either way, since you zeroed in on it meaning the paternal role. The thing is that the doctor taking on a paternal, and usually patriarchal and domineering role, deciding what is right for the patient overriding their decision is in fact a very important critique of the beginnings of modern medicine. That is how you get doctors deciding to do further procedures on people they put in comas without asking, or test medications or procedures on uninformed patients. For more mundane examples, its why people hate their asshole doctor who won’t listen to them. The compliance model of medicine is outdated, it is taught specifically as an example of how you get bad results.
It is not just children who do not get vaccinated. We have people who have grown up unvaccinated who have children who will then also not get vaccinated, and if we make demands of a medical treatment they do not desire they may instead forego medical assistance entirely.
Now if you want to deal with the idea of a medical practitioner giving a willing child a vaccine that the parent does not wish them to get, that is an interesting ethical dilemma.