When government policies are supported by the "greater good" argument, the implication is that the minority, which are excluded from the GREATER GOOD, become losers.. Since there will be losers, it seems appropriate to provide some cover for those who are left out. Any arbitrary compulsion should be, and usually are, considered unlawful.
Right now, there is a heated and effective discussion going on concerning multiple, compulsory vaccinations beginning at the moment of birth. There are INTERESTS which are promoting these which portray themselves as "protectors" when in reality, their conflict of interests, profits vs. "do gooders", disqualify them from being involved in the policy making.
It isn't always easy to provide options for the losers in "greater good" policies but in the case of compulsory vaccinations it is simple. If I understand the theory behind vaccinations, they are to protect the vaccinated from certain diseases and/or conditions. No matter where the vaccinated wanders, even into foreign countries or the wilderness, if they encounter the organism which causes the disease for which they have been vaccinated, they will NOT get sick. I think that is what the theory claims.
In the compulsory scenario, the concept of the "lesser good" can be applied easily. Those who do not want to be vaccinated should always have that choice, either completely or selectively. This way, both sides of "the good" of the people are satisfied and no one is hurt or deprived of their choice. Those wearing the coat of armor of vaccination need not fear those who are naked.
The potential and real risks of vaccination are at least as well documented as anything which supports their use or effectiveness. We should all have the right to choose whether to dive into the water before making sure it is deep enough to dive into safely.
Right now, there is a heated and effective discussion going on concerning multiple, compulsory vaccinations beginning at the moment of birth. There are INTERESTS which are promoting these which portray themselves as "protectors" when in reality, their conflict of interests, profits vs. "do gooders", disqualify them from being involved in the policy making.
It isn't always easy to provide options for the losers in "greater good" policies but in the case of compulsory vaccinations it is simple. If I understand the theory behind vaccinations, they are to protect the vaccinated from certain diseases and/or conditions. No matter where the vaccinated wanders, even into foreign countries or the wilderness, if they encounter the organism which causes the disease for which they have been vaccinated, they will NOT get sick. I think that is what the theory claims.
In the compulsory scenario, the concept of the "lesser good" can be applied easily. Those who do not want to be vaccinated should always have that choice, either completely or selectively. This way, both sides of "the good" of the people are satisfied and no one is hurt or deprived of their choice. Those wearing the coat of armor of vaccination need not fear those who are naked.
The potential and real risks of vaccination are at least as well documented as anything which supports their use or effectiveness. We should all have the right to choose whether to dive into the water before making sure it is deep enough to dive into safely.
No comments:
Post a Comment