# Are Mandatory Vaccines Unethical?



## Ashes4719

Hi all! So, I am from a particular state, that recently had a measles outbreak due to a lot of "antivaxxers". I do not live in that state anymore but a lot of family does so I have been updated on recent events. In this state, they are trying to pass laws that make certain vaccines mandatory. What do you think of this? Is it unethical? Or is it necessary to prevent deaths in the future from worse disease?

I just ask because I have mixed opinions on it. I believe that everyone should be vaccinated unless you have a medical condition that prevents you from doing so... however, I also believe that parents should have a say in what happens in their children's health.... but in doing so they are hurting other children so mandatory vaccines should be passed....

Anyway, let me know what you think and why!


----------



## Ashes4719

Also, do you think this will lead to other mandatory medical procedures in the future? Not just vaccines.


----------



## JayDubs

I believe vaccines work. I'm vaccinated. Any children I have in the future will be vaccinated. But I don't think it's ethical to force people to get a medical procedure because it's "for their own good." 

A parallel - Alcohol generally causes a lot more physical harm than good, both directly and indirectly. And because it impairs judgment, it can lead to other people getting hurt. The number of people killed yearly due to alcohol is far larger than the people who are put under threat by antivaxxers. And I'd argue that it's far more invasive to force a medical procedure upon someone than to prevent them from taking in a specific chemical substance. 

So should we re-institute prohibition?


----------



## chad86tsi

I don't think they should be mandatory, but I do think it's ethical to withhold access to public resources or facilities in the interest of public health if you choose not to get a vaccination. The idea that you have freedom to choose is still intact, but with it comes the need to accept some consequence too.


----------



## Ashes4719

JayDubs said:


> I believe vaccines work. I'm vaccinated. Any children I have in the future will be vaccinated. But I don't think it's ethical to force people to get a medical procedure because it's "for their own good."
> 
> A parallel - Alcohol generally causes a lot more physical harm than good, both directly and indirectly. And because it impairs judgment, it can lead to other people getting hurt. The number of people killed yearly due to alcohol is far larger than the people who are put under threat by antivaxxers. And I'd argue that it's far more invasive to force a medical procedure upon someone than to prevent them from taking in a specific chemical substance.
> 
> So should we re-institute prohibition?


I agree with this! But, though alcohol kills a lot innocent people every year, will prohibition significantly lower that? I just ask because if we did make certain vaccines mandatory (like meningitis) then we would have herd immunity and childern that can't get the vaccine or are not old enough will not get it. I guess I am trying to compare the two solutions to show that maybe prohibition would be less effective than mandatory vaccines? 

Ii agree that an invasive procedure is unethical but is it so if it protects others?



chad86tsi said:


> I don't think they should be mandatory, but I do think it's ethical to withhold access to public resources or facilities in the interest of public health if you choose not to get a vaccination. The idea that you have freedom to choose is still intact, but with it comes the need to accept some consequence too.


I think this is a good idea! Like maybe prevent people from going to public schools if they are not vaccinated for dangerous disease?


----------



## Handsome Dyke

I cannot say whether it's unethical—the meaning of "ethics" is too vague to be meaningful to me. 

I would prefer that people have the freedom to do what they want to their bodies and that parents be free to refuse certain medical procedures for their children. I also think it's fine that such families be restricted in some way in society to prevent the spread of diseases for which the children are not vaccinated. 

I think the actual problem in this scenario (the "unethical" bit, you may say) comes down to people being forced to participate in a society that requires vaccinations. People should have more freedom to opt out. The ability to homeschool one's children is one way to opt out, but I'm not sure that's enough in terms of the vaccination issue (it's certainly not enough in terms of general freedom). 

For example, if the kids are homeschooled to get around school vaccination requirements, the parents/guardians forfeit what is basically free daycare: public school. That could cut into the family's income because at least one parent will need to be home instead of working, at least when the kids are small. There are extremely limited options for making up for that lost income because there are extremely limited options for surviving without money and a job, and those limits are a direct consequence of the way societies are structured (private property, monopolization of resources, etc.). So the need for a second income could push the family to use public school, which could force them to get the kids vaccinated. Of course the parents have the option to not have kids in the first place, but that too is a decision that's limited by societal constraints in a way it shouldn't be. 

In short, the whole vaccination problem exists only because civilization exists. If people didn't live in such high population densities (a fundamental feature of civilization), almost no one would be affected when an infectious disease broke out and vaccinations therefore probably wouldn't even exist. And if people weren't forced to participate in the market economy to survive (another feature of civ), those who didn't want to abide by rules like vaccination requirements could more easily opt out.


----------



## SilentScream

Allowing the potential for mass deaths to occur due to the spread of preventable diseases combined with allowing mass ignorance to exist and be perpetuated is more unethical than mandatory vaccines.


----------



## JayDubs

Ashes4719 said:


> I agree with this! But, though alcohol kills a lot innocent people every year, will prohibition significantly lower that? I just ask because if we did make certain vaccines mandatory (like meningitis) then we would have herd immunity and childern that can't get the vaccine or are not old enough will not get it. I guess I am trying to compare the two solutions to show that maybe prohibition would be less effective than mandatory vaccines?


Yes, I think it's unethical even if it's effective. 

Let's take a look at the prohibition of alcohol again. It seems like we both agree that alcohol prohibition is a bad idea. But is it only a bad idea because it's difficult to enforce? Or is the more important aspect that people should have agency to make choices about their own lives? 

I'd argue the second part is more important. It's both a matter of humility and respecting other people as individuals. Humility, because it's hubris to think we always have the right answer. And respect for others to let them determine the course of their own lives. 



Ashes4719 said:


> I agree that an invasive procedure is unethical but is it so if it protects others?


Society has to balance safety and freedom - they're both important, and promoting one sometimes comes at the expense of the other. In this case, I'd balance it as chad does above. 

You don't have to get vaccinated. But there may be limits on what resources you can use if you refuse to be vaccinated. Public school is the obvious example.


----------



## ReliK

It's a good question, because even though it's just being floated for discussion in a lot of groups right now, I believe it will end up on the table as a serious proposal within the next one to two decades. And a lot is going to depend on what kind of political landscape we are in. The thing about reducing access to public resources is, I don't think that is going to be satisfactory to proponents of mandatory vaccines. Exposure isn't limited to schools, it's everywhere we go and engage... extra-curriculars, entertainment, shopping, gyms, just everywhere. Granting an entity the power to violate ones bodily autonomy seems really dangerous, when we consider how corrupt and self-interested some of these groups can be (big-pharma, government in general). It's not about science (I'm vaccinated, as is my child) it's about the potential to misuse that power, which is massive. I personally cant get on board with situations where people are held down and forced against their will, children are being taken without parental consent during school (I've seen a few extreme advocated mention this) but I think that's where it's headed. Vaccine requirements may begin with public resources, extend to private, until clear zones are created. Once that happens, nearby unvaccinated zones will likely still pose threats during travel. Arguments will be made that parents who do not vaccinate demonstrate gross negligence, and that the state should be able to come and take those kids. I don't know what's ethical, but I do believe we are headed for one hell of a shitstorm.


----------



## jamaix

JayDubs said:


> You don't have to get vaccinated. But there may be limits on what resources you can use if you refuse to be vaccinated. Public school is the obvious example.


 I agree!

My kids went to a private college and you could fill out paperwork that would allow you to opt out of being vaccinated, BUT there were potential consequences. For example: if there was a reported case of say meningitis (whether student or in a nearby area) an unvaccinated student was not allowed to attend class until it was deemed to no longer be a threat. However, classes would continue to meet and the student would not be permitted to make up the missed classes or assignments.

Before anyone gets excited and calls me an anti vaxxer, my kids were both vaccinated. I just happened to know about the policy. I thought it was fair.


----------



## pwowq

Mandatory vaccines are ethical.

Remember smallpox or polio? Great! Me neither!


----------



## Ashes4719

Nicomendes Saiyedros said:


> I cannot say whether it's unethical—the meaning of "ethics" is too vague to be meaningful to me.
> 
> I think the actual problem in this scenario (the "unethical" bit, you may say) comes down to people being forced to participate in a society that requires vaccinations. People should have more freedom to opt out. The ability to homeschool one's children is one way to opt out, but I'm not sure that's enough in terms of the vaccination issue (it's certainly not enough in terms of general freedom).
> 
> For example, if the kids are homeschooled to get around school vaccination requirements, the parents/guardians forfeit what is basically free daycare: public school. That could cut into the family's income because at least one parent will need to be home instead of working, at least when the kids are small. There are extremely limited options for making up for that lost income because there are extremely limited options for surviving without money and a job, and those limits are a direct consequence of the way societies are structured (private property, monopolization of resources, etc.). So the need for a second income could push the family to use public school, which could force them to get the kids vaccinated. Of course the parents have the option to not have kids in the first place, but that too is a decision that's limited by societal constraints in a way it shouldn't be.
> 
> In short, the whole vaccination problem exists only because civilization exists. If people didn't live in such high population densities (a fundamental feature of civilization), almost no one would be affected when an infectious disease broke out and vaccinations therefore probably wouldn't even exist. And if people weren't forced to participate in the market economy to survive (another feature of civ), those who didn't want to abide by rules like vaccination requirements could more easily opt out.


I think you bring up a really good point of view. There is basically already inhibiting factors that prevent many people, especially in the lower socioeconomic status, from being antivaxxers. I guess my concern is I do think that people should be vaccinated however, I wish an in ideal world everyone would see the benefit of that and want that. Now, that's not the case and I don't think its ethical to force a medical procedure on anyone. So, we get down to is general population health more important than freedom to chose? Even if it will hurt you or others around you? I also question if mandatory vaccines will end up leading to other mandatory procedures that health professionals deem healthy? 

One point that I also thought was interesting that you brought up was the aspect of civilization. We do live in very dense cities which allow for the spread of disease to increase. We are exposed to much more than if we were not living in such dense areas and I think this is good and bad for our immune system. Even if we could somehow spread everyone out and not live in such dense areas we would still get viruses though. 




ultracrepidarian said:


> It's a good question, because even though it's just being floated for discussion in a lot of groups right now, I believe it will end up on the table as a serious proposal within the next one to two decades. And a lot is going to depend on what kind of political landscape we are in. The thing about reducing access to public resources is, I don't think that is going to be satisfactory to proponents of mandatory vaccines. Exposure isn't limited to schools, it's everywhere we go and engage... extra-curriculars, entertainment, shopping, gyms, just everywhere. *Granting an entity the power to violate ones bodily autonomy seems really dangerous,* when we consider how corrupt and self-interested some of these groups can be (big-pharma, government in general). It's not about science (I'm vaccinated, as is my child) it's about the potential to misuse that power, which is massive. I personally cant get on board with situations where people are held down and forced against their will, children are being taken without parental consent during school (I've seen a few extreme advocated mention this) but I think that's where it's headed. Vaccine requirements may begin with public resources, extend to private, until clear zones are created. Once that happens, nearby unvaccinated zones will likely still pose threats during travel. Arguments will be made that parents who do not vaccinate demonstrate gross negligence, and that the state should be able to come and take those kids. I don't know what's ethical, but I do believe we are headed for one hell of a shitstorm.


This is what I have been thinking as well! It is scary to think that could be the future which I do not believe is ethical. I also think fear is a big motivator and changes people. If disease starts to spread, even if its something like measles (which is usually not fatal but can be) I worry that people will start to turn against their neighbors and panic will arise. I know this is dramatic but it has happened several times in our history. Okay, so I am was way over thinking this and I usually don't believe conspiracy theories but what if the government is doing this is rile people up? Fear is a very big motivator and it just seems odd to me that meseals, whooping cough, and other usually low fatal disease are starting to come back.... why no meningitis? In fact, that is extremely contagious so why the hell is not around if we have so many antivaxxers? Even if it's not the government may be the media is just blowing it out of proportion? I am not sure but I know that one way to get people really riled up is to make them scared for their lives and their families life. A little weird but I thought I would pose the question!


----------



## Ashes4719

jamaix said:


> Before anyone gets excited and calls me an anti vaxxer, my kids were both vaccinated. I just happened to know about the policy. I thought it was fair.


Yes, I just moved to a city where all of the local colleges require that students and professors have updated vaccinations. I was speaking with one of their professors who is not a supporter of that, because it prevents students from having "free will". He said some other things as well but that was the main point. Most of these students are older anyway so if they have not been vaccinated the probably have already been exposed to the disease and are fine. 

Anyway, I just wanted to bring up how easy people get upset nowadays too. I have seen anti vaxxers just get destroyed on social media. I mean I guess it has been that way for a long time but I feel like today is getting more and more polarized. I was alive during the Bill Clinton fiasco and I don't remember it being this bad even when Congress was trying to impeach a president. What I mean is that it was everywhere yes but I feel like the dichotomy between then and this last political election is huge. People are just anger and less open-minded.... maybe that's how it always has been but I have more free time and can be more attentive I am not sure. 

I apologize I went way off on a tangent! 



pwowq said:


> Mandatory vaccines are ethical.
> 
> Remember smallpox or polio? Great! Me neither!


True! Infant death rates have plummeted significantly since the invention of vaccines. I guess I just worry that with the passing of mandatory vaccines it will lead the way for other mandatory medical procedures against people's free will. I guess I am really stuck between freedom of your body and children body vs what is healthy for your and the community. I used to work in a hospital many many years ago, and a young man came in that was severely depressed. He was under 18 so he really didn't have any right to say no if his mom agreed to medical treatment. He was vegan, which at the time was not common so we had like no vegan options for food, He became "hangry" and upset that we didn't really have any vegan food choices and that he would have to eat what we had. I mean it was a hospital. He started to get agitated and started being rude to nurses so the doc ordered a sedative drug to calm him down. The doc had spoke with him twice beforehand and the patient was still not calming down so it was needed. But, just watching this young man get tied down by like 5-6 people was very distrubing. He cared a lot about what was going into his body and he did not want the shot but because he was a minor and being a little dick (which is not uncommon for that age group) he was forced to have some injected into him. I just didn't like it and I still don't. I want to decide what goes in my body and I want the free will to choose what happens to it. However, if my decision does hurt others, like not getting vaccines, should it even be my decision? 

OKay, sorry for the rants just ideas in my head.


----------



## The red spirit

Wait a second, is this another thread for antivaxxers? That bullshit group, that think that it's not forth to endure small sort term pain for long term gains.


----------



## Ashes4719

The red spirit said:


> Wait a second, is this another thread for antivaxxers? That bullshit group, that think that it's not forth to endure small sort term pain for long term gains.


Nope, I don't think so anyway? Almost everyone on this thread has said that they are for vaccinations. We were just talking about the ethics of mandatory vaccines and what that could mean in the future. I'm guessing from your comment though you are for them?


----------



## Sour Roses

I think mandatory vaccines are appropriate if:

[A] The disease is potentially life threatening even to those NOT already ill.

* The disease is highly contagious.

[C] The vaccine is highly effective.


All three of those have to be in place for me to consider it reasonable. 
For instance the flu vaccine would be wrong to make mandatory because the efficacy is ridiculously inadequate, and the frequency of recommended administration is high. No one wants to be forced to get a questionable shot twice a year  for something that most people don't have a big problem with. 
(I have never in my life gotten the flu or the shot, or even a cold for that matter)

A mandatory vaccine against the chicken pox would just be stupid considering it doesn't imperil life or limb.

But the most basic vital vaccine set and boosters makes a lot of sense. One thing I really do wish doctors did was separate the vaccines out a bit more. As it is with these 5 in 1's, if someone did have an allergic reaction it is impossible to tell which one caused the issue. People can have allergic side effects from a few vaccines, and if they aren't vital then they shouldn't have to get the same one again in a booster set just to receive the others.

When it comes to the anti-vaxxer crowd, I often think there is a simple solution the medical community seems really resistant to considering. 
More studies, performed by unaffiliated agencies, on post-24 hour vaccine side effects. As it is the only reaction studies we have fall within a 24hr window. 
Obviously someone has to be a special kind of stupid to believe there's any link to autism after all the debunking that has been done, but there are still some other concerns.
For instance, I'd love to see blood titer based comparison studies of efficacy with vaccines given individually versus 3 or 5 in 1's. 
I'd like to see studies of patients recently vaccinated being exposed to other unvaccinated viruses / bacteria with a control group exposed that is not vaccinated at all... and if there's an impact on infection (temporary immune system depression), what is the window of time that the effect lasts for? Should people get vaccinated on a weekend to protect themselves from other infections?
Well, like I said, the medical community seems reluctant to address these sorts of questions. They want the general populace to operate completely on trust, but that isn't a good way to relieve persistent anxieties. If they would take concerns more seriously, I think the anti-vaxxer movement would die off for good.*


----------



## Monadnock

They absolutely are unethical, and if the state tries to impose mandatory vaccinations on the populace, wise parents who recognize the truth that not all vaccines are beneficial are fully justified in using force to defend their children from the state's sinister agents, even if that force ends up being lethal.


----------



## Blazkovitz

Refusing to vaccinate yourself or your children is an act of pathological individualism. One person doing so doesn't harm anyone, but if there are enough anti-vaxers, infections are able to spread. Vaccinated people are also harmed in a way. They might have to care for the sick, although in a world without infections they might do more satisfying things.


----------



## The red spirit

Ashes4719 said:


> Nope, I don't think so anyway? Almost everyone on this thread has said that they are for vaccinations. We were just talking about the ethics of mandatory vaccines and what that could mean in the future. I'm guessing from your comment though you are for them?


When you choose between life and death in medicine, there's no other choice than life. Ethical or not, but everyone knows, that with vaccine it's better. 

The question would be legit if we were talking only about some sketchy vaccines, that for example in 50% of cases could help and in other 50% they would be harmful or useless.

But as far as I know, antivaxxers are just complete idiots in most cases, just like SJWs and feminists. I don't wanna be offensive, because all those groups had legits reasons to exists, just that over time, when main issues were solved all of them started to create issues for everyone and for dumbest reasons ever. I still remember some idiota, who spilled bleach on male's crotch, when they had their legs spread in public transport and excuse was something about feminism and that such behavior is gross. Meanwhile real reasons why feminism even started, was that females lacked many rights, that males and and they got much smaller salaries. The idea was that all genders are equally worthy, but not equal. Sadly, this simple thing is mostly not understood and that's why they became idiots. Same happened to SJWs and lately to antivaxxers. 

Sorry, but I'm not into playing Russian Roulette with my life and there's no way, I can agree that ditching important parts of medicine is a good idea. It's not and it's just silly.

Your question is open ended and there's an option for answer 'unethical', therefore this thread definitely implies that the discussed topic can even be questioned and you most likely want to see two sides discussing, but you must know, that such threads most likely result into flame wars of two sides.


----------



## The Veteran

I don't think it is unethical.

Vaccines cures diseases. It is an effective solution.

The 'terrible' stuff you hear when you are vaccinated is a myth. We don't live in the 1980's anymore.

The stuff about that should not be in any ones minds because vaccines cannot have that problem.

The only problem with vaccines are being pricked by needle. But who hasn't been pricked by something before? And it will only give you not-so-serious side effects.

Diseases have 1000 times more negative impact than some side effect of vaccine that can easily and quickly be worn off.

All the stuff you hear about terrible vaccines get it out of your mind and throw it in a dustbin.
---
Here are myths about vaccinations that people tend to believe.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/myths-truths-kids-vaccines/

1. Do not have a vaccination when you're ill

It's a FACT that you should postpone your child's jab if they're ill and have a high temperature (fever). 
You may also want to postpone vaccination if your child has had a bad reaction to a previous dose of the vaccine. 
This does not mean that they'll never be able to have the vaccine again, but it's a good idea to speak to your GP, practice nurse or health visitor first. 

2. Do not have a vaccination if you have an allergy

It's a FACT that your child should not have a vaccine if they have had a confirmed severe allergic reaction (anaphylactic reaction) to a previous dose of the vaccine or an ingredient in it.

3. Do not have a "live" vaccine if you have a weakened immune system

Live vaccines are ones that contain the virus or bacteria they're supposed to protect against, albeit in a weakened form.
It's a FACT that your child should not have live vaccines, such as BCG (tuberculosis vaccination) or MMR, if:

your child isbeing treated with high-dose steroid tablets or injections – if you're not sure, check with a GP 
your child is being treated for cancer with chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or has had these treatments within the last 6 months 
your child has had an organ transplant and is on immunosuppressant drugs 
your child's immune system is lowered – if you're not sure, check with a GP 

Here are more myths


It's a MYTH that you have to avoid or delay your child's vaccination if they have a mild illness without a fever, such as a cough or cold, or if they have an allergy, such as asthma, hay fever or eczema.
It's a MYTH that you have to avoid or delay your baby's vaccinations if they were premature. 
It's a MYTH that you have to avoid your baby's vaccinations if they have a history of febrile seizures or convulsions (related to fever) or epilepsy, or there's a family history of such conditions. 
It's a MYTH that vaccinations can overload a baby's immune system. In fact, only a tiny fraction of your baby's immune system is used by childhood vaccines, and they come into contact with many more bugs in their daily life. This video explains why vaccines do not weaken your child's immune system.
It's a MYTH that homeopathy can be used as an alternative to vaccinations to protect children against potentially serious infections. In fact, there's no evidence that homeopathy can protect children against disease and illness.
It's a MYTH that it's unsafe to take your baby swimming around the time of a vaccination. In fact, you can take your baby swimming at any time before and after their vaccinations.


----------

