Click Here To Read The RestI seem to have spooked the anti-vax proponents with my last entry: Measles outbreaks traced back to unvaccinated individuals. The sentences that riled them up are the following:Clearly, vaccination is not solely a personal choice. One the one hand we want to respect the individual’s right to make decisions about their own health and life, but on the other hand a behavior that affects others does not rest solely on the individual sphere. So where does the right balance rest? We cannot force an individual to get a vaccine, but on the other hand what kind of responsibility does that person bear for infecting another? Should the other person have the right to sue the unvaccinated person in civil court? Should people who choose not to vaccinate pay higher health insurance premiums than the rest of us? Both options seem to make sense to me. What do you think?I stand by what I said in this paragraph. I understand that we cannot force people to vaccinate against their wish, however when a person chooses a behavior that puts others at risk, that person then bears responsibility for his actions. A drunk driver may appeal to his personal freedoms when it comes to drinking and driving (it’s my life and if I want to risk it, I’ll risk it dammit), but he will be held responsible if he hurts others through his drunk driving. So my original two questions stand: Should the other person have the right to sue the unvaccinated person who infected him in civil court? Should people who choose not to vaccinate pay higher health insurance premiums than the rest of us?
Friday, April 29, 2011
Yesterday I posted an article about the outbreaks of measles from the Vaccine Times. It has gathered some steam, and they have some commentary on it that is well worth reading.