tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182712709703423977.post2957432587649054923..comments2023-12-28T21:19:56.842-08:00Comments on The Justicar: Magic Time!Justicarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11271259122971289909noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182712709703423977.post-52658846081951805422011-11-04T05:43:45.272-07:002011-11-04T05:43:45.272-07:00The fact that you make an exception in the case of...The fact that you make an exception in the case of epidemic suggests that it is a matter of balancing risk/benefit, and that it is acceptable to accept some level of risk for a sufficiently large benefit. This violates the notion that it is unacceptable (ethically) to give a shot to someone who will derive no benefit from the shot. If it is, indeed, a matter of risk/benefit, then it's merely a matter of setting the threshold at which one considers it ethical to risk one person's health for the benefit of others. In order to eradicate smallpox, many people were given smallpox shots that posed a considerable risk despite the fact that the risk of smallpox in their area had been reduced to the point that the risk from the shot may well have been higher. This has doubtless saved many lives, as every future generation benefits from the elimination of smallpox. <br />It is perfectly normal in our lives to suffer inconveniences for the benefit of others; I'd love to send peanut butter sandwiches in to school with my kids, but I might inadvertantly make another child very ill (possibly even causing death) if they came in contact with peanuts. It's a minor inconvenience to a large number of people, protecting a small number of children from a much worse problem. Vaccinating boys against HPV (without any benefit being derived) is similar; you cause a small issue for many (mostly soreness at the injection site) to protect a small number (girls who would have developed cancer) from something dreadful.Epinephrinenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182712709703423977.post-17342626252424138642011-11-03T14:25:28.997-07:002011-11-03T14:25:28.997-07:00Making these vaccines mandatory when they pose a (...Making these vaccines mandatory when they pose a (minor) risk to the patient and offer no benefit would, indeed, be ethically unacceptable in the absence of a public-health emergency such as an epidemic.<br /><br />HOWEVER.... According to ERV's blog, there is evidence that the vaccine DOES provide a benefit to boys: it can reduce the risk of oral cancer too. <br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/10/cdc_recommends_hpv_vaccine_for.php<br /><br />This changes the equation somewhat.Copyleftnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182712709703423977.post-24601931440934050542011-11-01T23:22:49.278-07:002011-11-01T23:22:49.278-07:00I am of two minds on this, and what is keeping fro...I am of two minds on this, and what is keeping from coming along with you is is a horrible slippery slope argument. I realize that it's not exactly tight logic like one might expect of me, but my reasoning as to why this particular slippery slope is at least persuasive, if not outright compelling deals with calibration of a baseline of expected societal norms.<br /><br />So, let's say we do that and make it mandatory for everyone. And a generation goes by such that everyone is just used to the powers that be coming in and forcing vaccinations. Whatever is the problem of that day has already an immediately universal resolution for the pondering: make people do it.<br /><br />But on the issue of a physician advocating one option over another on reliable data subject to rejection or acceptance by a patient, then I see no ethical problem at all.The Justicarhttp://www.integralmath.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182712709703423977.post-39056156617183119322011-11-01T22:48:53.156-07:002011-11-01T22:48:53.156-07:00@madder: That is my understanding as well. However...@madder: That is my understanding as well. However, I have to say that I strongly disagree with this view in regards to infectious diseases. When effective, long-lasting vaccines are available, I think we are doing ourselves as a society a disservice to *not* make them mandatory. We're just setting ourselves up for outbreaks that were entirely preventable, which will cause large amounts of cost and quite likely large amounts of entirely preventable deaths... and not necessarily to the people who chose to avoid the vaccines. I don't see why I or my loved ones should have to suffer because Joe Blow figured he didn't need his vaccines, and spread his germs to me or mine.Wodennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182712709703423977.post-8834632030049870362011-10-28T14:30:45.188-07:002011-10-28T14:30:45.188-07:00I think the claim isn't that it would be uneth...I think the claim isn't that it would be unethical to <i>offer</i> the vaccine to boys, but rather that it would be unethical to coerce them in some way to get it (e.g. requirement for school attendance, or otherwise causing them some inconvenience if they don't). At least that's how I've always understood it; someone will correct me if I've gone astray.maddernoreply@blogger.com