First and foremost: vaccines don't cause autism. They just don't. There has never been any evidence to suggest so. The only thing that ever existed as supposed evidence of a link was one guy's study, which was proven to be completely fabricated. He even admitted that he lied. I'm not even going to bother linking to the information, as it's well-documented and easy to find. Vaccines and autism have nothing to do with each other.
With that out of the way, I move to the issue at hand. There's been some controversy lately, especially in right-wing circles, about vaccines and the tension between personal and governmental responsibility. Vaccines are an obviously good thing, but many misinformed and paranoid people are eschewing them. Should, then, the government coerce people into getting themselves and their children vaccinated?
Some have argued that vaccination is a matter of liberty, a personal choice. It may be incredibly wrong to avoid vaccines for no legitimate medical reason, but people have the right to exercise their liberty and make bad decisions. Just because you misuse your freedom doesn't mean it should be taken away.
That sounds like a good argument, until you consider the fact that vaccination's impact is not limited to the individual. If you refuse vaccination for yourself or your child, you not only increase personal risk, but expose other people that cannot receive vaccination for legitimate medical reasons (like infants) to unnecessary danger (look up "herd immunity" for a more detailed explanation). That "personal choice" ceases to be a matter of individual liberty when it directly endangers other individuals.
With this in mind, is it legitimate for the government to mandate vaccination (at least to a certain threshold) to protect its citizens? While I'm not completely convinced in either direction, I do believe there's a reasonable case that it should. The government's purpose is to protect its citizens' life, liberty, and property, those unalienable human rights. When an individual under that government's authority does something to infringe upon those rights of another individual (say, robbing him of his property), then (and only then) the government can legitimately use coercion to prevent or punish this. This is, on a basic level, why we have laws against murder, theft, kidnapping, and so on.
This is similar to the argument for outlawing or severely limiting abortion. Abortion is not merely a personal decision, but infringes on the right to life of another human. Thus, it is an illegitimate moral act that the government has a responsibility to prevent. The same goes for the natural law justification for war. The government can only take military action to protect its citizens from real threats to their lives and well-being.
So, then, it is possible to support government-mandated vaccination while still adhering to liberty as a right, because liberty cannot trump life. Still, having the federal government in control of yet another aspect of our lives will, rightly, leave a bad taste in people's mouths. It also may appear that the justification of forced vaccination is all too similar to the ones for Obamacare and other government encroachments on liberty.
My initial response is to propose a compromise. This issue, one could argue, falls under the Tenth Amendment, and is thus relegated to the states. There are already state laws in place requiring vaccination for children to attend public school, so state governments are certainly capable of handling this problem. If people dislike the laws of one state, they can make the decision to move to another one with more suitable policies. People do this all the time already for things like tax laws, so it would apply to this case as well. Though not a total guarantee that people won't still make terrible decisions about vaccines, letting the states handle it will, at least in theory, reconcile the priorities of safety and liberty concerning vaccination.
One thing the federal government could do is attempt to educate people on how vaccines work, their immense benefits to both the individual and society, and the real science behind what risks do actually exist for each kind of vaccine. Obviously, the hardcore deniers will still cling to their paranoia, saying, "that's just what you want me to think!" Still, information is a valuable tool against widespread stupidity.
So, in short: get your shots. Get your kids' shots. Hopefully the government won't have to do it for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment