US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1966

On May 15 2015 22:41 kwizach wrote:

The "underlying principles" of the Declaration of Helsinky are not relevant with regards to what we're discussing here.

On May 15 2015 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:
A declaration about the use of bodies for research has nothing to add to a discussion about public health because people refuse to vaccinate

On May 15 2015 22:52 Ghostcom wrote:


If you can't see how the rights to self-determination is relevant to a discussion concerning making medical treatment mandatory I think I'm unable to help you. If it is the fact that I tied it to the Declaration of Helsinki that you get hung up on, then we can also hang it up on the Human rights or the Patient Self-Determination Act.

Also please note that I'm not saying that I disagree with mandating vaccines, I'm explaining why governments are generally reluctant to do it.



Try and actually read the posts. It is not the declaration itself, it is the underlying principles of right to self-determination. A principle which is pervasive to modern healthcare.

On May 15 2015 22:52 Ghostcom wrote:


If you can't see how the rights to self-determination is relevant to a discussion concerning making medical treatment mandatory I think I'm unable to help you. If it is the fact that I tied it to the Declaration of Helsinki that you get hung up on, then we can also hang it up on the Human rights or the Patient Self-Determination Act.

Also please note that I'm not saying that I disagree with mandating vaccines, I'm explaining why governments are generally reluctant to do it.

On May 15 2015 12:03 coverpunch wrote:

This is actually, not true, if you look at actual respondents.


Most of these samples seem to indicate that people do fundamentally understand how vaccines work but they veer off at a certain point.

On May 15 2015 23:00 farvacola wrote:

Ok, because you seem like a more and more delicate snowflake each day, let's nip this "You aren't reading my posts" nonsense in the bud.

On May 15 2015 23:00 farvacola wrote:
You put forth the notion that the "entire foundation of the Helsinki declaration" deals in the right of a patient to the self-determination of his own medical destiny. You then attached this assertion to the idea that it somehow justifies the mindset described by KwarK, that being the all too common "as the guardian of my and my child's body, I know better than the doctor." In other words, you are putting forth the naked assertion that the foundation of the Helsinki Declaration exculpates a mindset that privies skepticism and self-determination above all else when faced with a doctor-ordered vaccination.

On May 15 2015 23:00 farvacola wrote:
So, as a threshold issue, let's look to the preamble and general principles of the most recent iteration of the Declaration of Helsinki. If there's an issue concerning the foundation of a treaty, agreement, or piece of legal writing, stated principles or the reasons behind authorship/promulgation are a good place to look.




Ok, so, right out of the gate we have some important caveats being given by the authors. First off, statement 1 makes it very clear that the DoH is intended to address medical research involving human subjects. This is an important starting point because an interpretative argument that suggests that the "entire foundation" of the DOH deals in patient self-determination is going to have to show that the authors of the DoH are operating off of un-stated premises. Yes, all writing and rule-making is done given certain assumptions on the part of authors or promulgators, but in this case, the plain faced nature of that first statement suggests that this document is attempting to limit its scope to that of medical research. Accordingly, the likelihood that the "entire foundation" of the DoH deals in something significantly more general than its stated goal is less likely. Furthermore, when we add in the "read as a whole" and "addressed primarily to physicians" aspects of the preamble, the strength of your assertion seems to wane by the letter. I don't even need to get into the general principles.

Given the scope of the DoH as laid out in its preamble, it would seem that the DoH and its foundation are intended to address the obligations of physicians when they experiment, perform research, or otherwise test various ideas against their real-life instantiations. To relate the DoH to the mindset of anti-vaxxers as described by KwarK is to suggest that the DoH somehow impliedly and absolutely exculpates the behavior of parents who refrain from giving their children vaccines as though vaccines are somehow experimental or research-like in character. Yes, the DoH does indicate that it prizes the rights of patients to self-determine their own medical destinies, but it does not do so in an absolute or even general sense. It merely implies that patients have a right to not be experimented on without their consent.

4. It is the duty of the physician to promote and safeguard the health, well-being and rights of patients, including those who are involved in medical research. The physician's knowledge and conscience are dedicated to the fulfilment of this duty.

A PHYSICIAN SHALL respect a competent patient's right to accept or refuse treatment.

So, stop getting so dramatic when people reply to the necessary implications of your posts; as a Dane, it would probably be best if you weren't as quick with the "you can't read my posts" finger, particularly on English-based forums.

On May 15 2015 23:00 farvacola wrote:
Everyone who posts here and reads this thread can read just fine, and when people seem to address something that you believe is not present in your posts, perhaps it's time to think on differences of interpretation instead of bare reading comprehension.

On May 15 2015 23:40 Ghostcom wrote:


I'm happy that you'll actually start reading my posts. I don't consider it to be a special snowflake to expect people who decide to reply to my posts to have actually read them. When you don't you are putting words in my mouth which is quite frankly no way to have a discussion.



I'm pretty sure I didn't say the mindset of the parents was justified - I am however fairly certain I said that it was within their right. Even when it becomes a public health issue. I can see how that part could have been clearer.



The preamble defines what the Declaration of Helsinki applies to, but that is hardly "the underlying principles of the DoH" is it now? Not any more than the preamble to the Declaration of the Independence is the underlying principles of the DoI.

So yes, you actually do need to get into the general principles and you do need to examine what are the underlying principles that guided the wording of the declaration.

So for starters, let us take a look at the general principles, i.e. the underlying principles, i.e what I have been talking about all along:



Guess what are the rights of patients? The right to self-determination. It is again mentioned under point 9. Furthermore the declaration repeatedly cites the International Code of Medical Ethics which has as it's bullet nr 2:



I think it is more than reasonable to say that one of the underlying ethical principles of the DoH is that humans have a right to govern their own bodies.



You have 3 times failed to comprehend my posts - I don't think it is particularly dramatic to ask you to stop extracting from them what you like and instead actually read what is written. When you get "The DoH says" from "The underlying principles of the DoH" you are putting words in my mouth. I assure you what I write is exactly what I mean - nothing more, nothing less. My nationality should play absolutely no part in this and that you even bring it up is disgraceful on your part.



Not everyone who posts here and reads this thread are doing so with an open mind. My wording is very carefully chosen for the most part and perhaps that is my mistake. To expect people to actually interpret "the underlying principles of the DoH" to mean "the underlying principles of the DoH" instead of "the DoH says".

But for the sake of continuing on a more productive trail of discussion that my English skills (and please take this statement exactly as it is worded): Mandating medical treatment is generally something governments shy away from as it conflicts with the ethical principle of the right to self-determination pervasive to modern healthcare. A danger to the public health would have to be imminent and in the case of vaccination it is almost impossible to make such a case.

On May 15 2015 12:03 coverpunch wrote:

This is actually, not true, if you look at actual respondents.


Most of these samples seem to indicate that people do fundamentally understand how vaccines work but they veer off at a certain point.

On May 15 2015 23:45 ZasZ. wrote:


Not vaccinating is an imminent danger to public health. What do you recommend, we wait for children to start dying from measles before mandating vaccines? I think we would all just rather nobody die from diseases we eradicated long ago. Or this: don't force parents to put their children through the horrors of easy, cheap vaccinations, but if they opt out their kid goes into quarantine with the other unfortunate children of nutbag parents for the rest of their lives.

On May 15 2015 23:51 Ghostcom wrote:


I'm using the term imminent as it is being used in medical law. Which means the danger has to be tangible/death or bodily harm will occur within hours.

I personally consider parents who refuse to vaccinate with tried and tested vaccines (i.e. not HPV) to be bordering on neglecting their kids and undue legal guardians. I do however also recognize that we have as a society established some ethical principles which we should be very careful of ignoring as that would somewhat defeat the purpose of establishing said principles.

On May 15 2015 23:51 Ghostcom wrote:
I personally consider parents who refuse to vaccinate with tried and tested vaccines (i.e. not HPV) to be bordering on neglecting their kids and undue legal guardians. I do however also recognize that we have as a society established some ethical principles which we should be very careful of ignoring as that would somewhat defeat the purpose of establishing said principles.

On May 15 2015 22:04 farvacola wrote:
And people wonder why I want more homeschooling regulation and an increased Federal presence in state education budget discussions

On May 16 2015 00:38 Introvert wrote:


We've been over this before. Many of the unvaccinated are at richer, upper class schools/ neighborhood. I'm not sure what homeschooling has to do with it.

I think you just want reasons to get the feds involved

On May 16 2015 00:00 ZasZ. wrote:


Except that definition of imminent is not applicable to vaccines because if someone's death or bodily harm will occur within hours it is unlikely a vaccine would be effective. It also does not protect children who are unable to be vaccinated for various reasons from the children of irresponsible parents they are exposed to.

I would argue that the concept of self-determination, which is extremely important, is not applicable when without the treatment you pose a danger to other people. It's the same reason I think that people with serious mental illness should be forced to take their medication and why there is good reason for mandatory quarantines for people believed to have dangerous contagious illnesses like ebola. I have every right to refuse chemotherapy or radiation treatment for my cancer because that affects me and no one else. I do not think self-determination applies to vaccinations.

On May 16 2015 01:02 Ghostcom wrote:
EDIT: And then let us all please remember how this started: A bill which would force parents to vaccinate their children if they wanted to put them in kindergarden. That bill is obviously not unreasonable as it does not actually force the parents to vaccinate. Once again, I have been explaining why the government is unwilling to make a bill that would literally mandate vaccination.

On May 16 2015 01:02 Ghostcom wrote:


I agree that it is not a very handy definition for "danger", however that is the one we as a society has decided as the benchmark for when it is okay to violate someones right to self-determination. I.e. a seriously mental ill person has to be in a state of psychosis or a state that can be paralleled to psychosis and as such an imminent danger to either himself or others before you can force him to take medication.

Equating quarantines and vaccinations is a stretch as there is no reason to believe an unvaccinated child necessarily is bearer of the disease whilst those placed under quarantine during ebola are people who have shown symptoms of the disease.

Vaccines aren't completely safe though and there are side-effects to them. Just not the ones you usually hear from the batshit insane anti-vaxxer crowd. The most common one to the measles vaccine is rash (1-10%), vomiting (1%), diarrhea (1%), urticaria (1%) and upper airway infection (1%). Stuff such as anaphylaxis, Steven-Johnsons (a milder version of toxic epidermal necrosis with "only" a 5% mortality rate), aseptic meningitis, myalgia, arthralgia, thrombocytopenia etc happens with an unknown frequency (so extremely rare). Overall though, vaccines are of course safe because the likelihood of any of those to occur is small compared with the historical risk of attracting measles.

I do obviously not disagree that you should of course be allowed to say no to chemotherapy, but it is not as cut'n'dry as you are making it. In fact it is possible for doctors to force you to take treatment if we are talking a highly curable cancer - take Cassandra C for instance.

Forcing people to vaccinate opens a potential slippery slope for when it is okay to force medical treatment on someone and it is not something that should be done lightly.

EDIT: And then let us all please remember how this started: A bill which would force parents to vaccinate their children if they wanted to put them in kindergarden. That bill is obviously not unreasonable as it does not actually force the parents to vaccinate. Once again, I have been explaining why the government is unwilling to make a bill that would literally mandate vaccination.