tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post4631634776855683490..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Immunization DenialAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-8314906553938233082009-11-18T03:26:32.182-07:002009-11-18T03:26:32.182-07:00This is an interesting idea. Where did you study m...This is an interesting idea. Where did you study medicine? Probability? Rational thought process? <br /><br />Who cares which person is immunised (immuniZed in the American, bastardisation of a perfectly good language, spelling) <br /><br />If we are the strong. We survive! We live to put forward our genetic material. Or we get sick and evolve a strong immunity. <br /><br />If your offspring are physically inferior they will die! If this happens to mine then so be it. The next genetic combination my mate and I produce might survive. <br /><br />If you let every pathetic creature live because you have assisted them then you are not doing the best for the species.<br /><br />gods and christians promote ethical obligations to care for more weaker individuals than themselves.<br /><br />Infected individuals should be removed to their own regions... animals do this. Why don't you see the intelligenceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-75132495051240098532009-10-15T02:02:01.725-06:002009-10-15T02:02:01.725-06:00I think this raises an interesting question.
Firs...I think this raises an interesting question.<br /><br />First, obviously I believe your conclusions are correct, immunization is one of the greatest forces for good in the modern world. Immunization is responsible (as an estimate) for approx 1/3rd of the current world population being alive. This is a mind-boggling number, and an incredible achievement.<br /><br />The question I feel is of relevance is that of <a href="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/06/killing-innocent-child.html" rel="nofollow">"letting die vs killing"</a>. (To sum up, it is the question of whether it is permissible for a doctor to kill one patient in order to harvest his organs and save five others. The answer is no.)<br /><br />The fear is that by giving your child an immunization, he may (with incredibly small probability) die due to the immunization. This feels like killing your child. Not giving him the shot and allowing your child to die of small pox feels like letting him die due to natural forces. Even if the odds are 0.001% of a vaccine death, and 3% of a disease death, they feel qualitatively different.<br /><br />And due to EVERYONE ELSE getting the shot, it's more like 0.001% and 0.005%.<br /><br />Obviously we don't want to return to a state where 1/3rd of all children died before they reached their teens due to vaccine-preventable death. But given the current state, it's hard to demonstrate to people why they should risk the smaller chance of Killing vs the (larger, but still very small) chance of Letting Die.<br /><br />Hm.<br /><br />I think I just answered my own question. I guess it's more of a practical question of ending the free-rider problem.Eneaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14500232958398471146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-43264438685523913222009-10-14T23:52:36.937-06:002009-10-14T23:52:36.937-06:00Alonzo,
I agree with you that immunization in gen...Alonzo,<br /><br />I agree with you that immunization in general is a good thing and that denial of this fact is immoral.<br /><br />However, as <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1" rel="nofollow">this article</a> argues, flu immunization may not be such a straight forward case. Or rather it may be a case in which more research is needed into the effectiveness of population wide immunization.<br /><br />Just my 2 cents. :-)Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729858603831755459noreply@blogger.com