Tweet
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sirotnikov
[q]
What is herd-immunity?
If I realize correctly - it means that a certain number of vaccinations will cause immunity.
It means that if, say, 90% of the folks are gonna get immunized anyway, youre probably safe without being immunized. Since there is a risk associated with the vaccine, its your incentive to freeride.
"Then it is not clearly the society's interest that EVERYONE be vaccinated."
But its also not in societys interest that everyone try to free ride. Since if they did, far too few would get the vaccine, and thered be no herd immunity. You are counting on all the other people to get vaccinated so you dont have to. Classic Kantian ethical dilemma.
unless they are fatal - they are not obligatory.
"Some are - as decided by the government (for instance - polio)."
Only obligatory vaccines here are for kids, to go to public school. Other than that, you can refuse ANY medical treatment - thats a common law right.
Look, Im gonna bow out on this.
Some of the examples I gave before were addressed specifically to Kuci, not to the question raised here. And yes, I know that some ethical issues doctors can, should, and do pass on to their patients. Sometimes they cant, cause the patient isnt conscious, or cause there isnt time in an emergency (I dont know if youve ever been in that position, but ive been in one where my wife was showing signs of going into premature labor, and the doc had to decide whether to give her a med to stop the contractions. The doc didnt have time to explain to me or my wife the benefits, risks, or the ethical questions involved in differential risks to mom and to baby. She just made the call, and gave the drug. It worked, so no complaints, but it would be silly to think that values, the WEIGHTS to the cost and risks, wasnt part of the decion making process, however unconcious.)
Similarly docs give you info, clearly with an agenda. When my dad, may he be remembered for a blessing, had heart troubles that proved fatal, and there were decisions to be made that involved differential chances of death, recovery, and a persistent vegetative state, the cardiologist, the surgeon, and the general practitioner all had somewhat different takes. Ultimately his death was not caused by the decision taken, but it didnt leave me with the sense of a "value free" medicine that you seem to have.
[q]
What is herd-immunity?
If I realize correctly - it means that a certain number of vaccinations will cause immunity.
It means that if, say, 90% of the folks are gonna get immunized anyway, youre probably safe without being immunized. Since there is a risk associated with the vaccine, its your incentive to freeride.
"Then it is not clearly the society's interest that EVERYONE be vaccinated."
But its also not in societys interest that everyone try to free ride. Since if they did, far too few would get the vaccine, and thered be no herd immunity. You are counting on all the other people to get vaccinated so you dont have to. Classic Kantian ethical dilemma.
unless they are fatal - they are not obligatory.
"Some are - as decided by the government (for instance - polio)."
Only obligatory vaccines here are for kids, to go to public school. Other than that, you can refuse ANY medical treatment - thats a common law right.
Look, Im gonna bow out on this.
Some of the examples I gave before were addressed specifically to Kuci, not to the question raised here. And yes, I know that some ethical issues doctors can, should, and do pass on to their patients. Sometimes they cant, cause the patient isnt conscious, or cause there isnt time in an emergency (I dont know if youve ever been in that position, but ive been in one where my wife was showing signs of going into premature labor, and the doc had to decide whether to give her a med to stop the contractions. The doc didnt have time to explain to me or my wife the benefits, risks, or the ethical questions involved in differential risks to mom and to baby. She just made the call, and gave the drug. It worked, so no complaints, but it would be silly to think that values, the WEIGHTS to the cost and risks, wasnt part of the decion making process, however unconcious.)
Similarly docs give you info, clearly with an agenda. When my dad, may he be remembered for a blessing, had heart troubles that proved fatal, and there were decisions to be made that involved differential chances of death, recovery, and a persistent vegetative state, the cardiologist, the surgeon, and the general practitioner all had somewhat different takes. Ultimately his death was not caused by the decision taken, but it didnt leave me with the sense of a "value free" medicine that you seem to have.
Comment