Vaccinations imposed by law

[Leonhard]

Nothing so far said about the morality of legally forcing someone who doesn't believe in vaccines to allow his family's vaccinations.

I wouldn't force them, but I would have them pay extra income tax for doing so. And this is entirely moral as its proper for societies to enact measures that protect against avoidable diseases, with safe and effective means. Even to mandate this, which is already done with water fluoridation. In a libertarian world, this would involve those who owned the areas people lived in, writing into their contracts that people living there must vaccinate. For the same reasons.

The only reason you could argue that people should be free to not vaccinate, is if there's moral objections to the vaccine itself. But since it can be objectively shown that the negative outcomes are significantly less than the deseases they prevent, and it has now been adamantly shown that vaccines don't come with long-term ill side effects such as autism (check this study on siblings with and without vaccines http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=2275444). And its also clear that society at large is harmed by individuals who shirk responsibility. Then we have a moral reason to implement means to get this done. Even libertarians should agree with this, but they should argue that somehow the free market would accomplish this.

That leaves religious objections to vaccines. but since no one except for a few sects such as Christian Scientists hold that medical treatments like that are evil, no one can really make a case for religious objection. You can't just make up a religion on the spot to get out of a law.

The best solution I can see for getting people to vaccine is to leavy a significant tax penalty on the income tax of those who choose not to vaccinate themselves or their children. The greater the income, the higher the percentage.

[Paprika]

I wouldn't force them, but I would have them pay extra income tax for doing so. And this is entirely moral as its proper for societies to enact measures that protect against avoidable diseases, with safe and effective means.

As above, you can't just lump any and every vaccine together as equally necessary and harmless. There needs to be an individual consideration of each vaccine for each disease.

[Leonhard]

As above, you can't just lump any and every vaccine together as equally necessary and harmless. There needs to be an individual consideration of each vaccine for each disease.

I was responding to Truthseeker's claim that its somehow against the moral law to impose laws on people regulating their behaviour regarding public health risks. And doing that I'd need to specify that it would be done by taxing, which isn't the same as making it illegal.

Of course, there's no reason to vaccinate against certain diseases in the west which don't exist here.

But in the west the regular vaccination schedule ought to be followed http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/...sch-0-6yrs.pdf.

There are no vaccines on that list that anyone can give objective and well justified reasons to not do. If they want to avoid them, they must pay a tax for the costs they incur to society because of their behaviour.

[Paprika]

There are no vaccines on that list that anyone can give objective and well justified reasons to not do. If they want to avoid them, they must pay a tax for the costs they incur to society because of their behaviour.

No, you need to provide objective and well justified reasons to take each and every one of those vaccines, along with the amount of social cost so that the tax can be levied for each individual violation.

[Leonhard]

No, you need to provide objective and well justified reasons to take each and every one of those vaccines, along with the amount of social cost so that the tax can be levied for each individual violation.

That's what I meant. These vaccines have been shown to be safe and efficacious.

If anyone wants to be conscientious objectors, but without this having consequences for them, they would have to defend the claim that there's something dangerous about any of these vaccines, despite the current evidence out there. I don't think this can be done, much like I don't hold out hope that we'll suddenly unearth scientific evidence that will overturn our basic understanding of the historicity of Rome.

I have nothing against people making such attempts if they genuinely feel that these vaccines are dangerous. On a case-by-case basis. As it is, parents who don't vaccinate their children, should pay for the risks and costs they incur to society. This cost should be weighed based on the estimated cost of the consequences of their behaviour and the number of people who.

[Paprika]

That's what I meant. These vaccines have been shown to be safe and efficacious.

You need to show more than that: you need to demonstrate for each and every vaccine that you propose that it is socially necessary and to what extent, ie. you need to name and demonstrate the costs involved to society incurred if people abstain and show that they are of a significant character to force people to compensate for it through taxes.

[Leonhard]

You need to show more than that: you need to demonstrate for each and every vaccine that you propose that it is socially necessary and to what extent, ie. you need to name and demonstrate the costs involved to society incurred if people abstain and show that they are of a significant character to force people to compensate for it through taxes.

Oh you mean in this thread for your sake? Sure why not, I'll try to do that tomorrow.

Though for legal purposes its sufficient if this is done to the satisfaction of law makers. In my opinion this has long since been done.