Current Events > Hypothetical: There's a drug that if given to kids will prevent all diseases but

(+) Yeah! (+)

...43.7% of the adult population absolutely believes, and cannot be persuaded otherwise, that this drug is harmful.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9cPD9Kx7-xs/hqdefault.jpg

Is it ethical to make vaccination with this drug mandatory for all children?
---

Who gives a damn about "beliefs" versus facts?
---

Yes. it would be ethical.
---

Nah, just let the nonbelievers die off. Too many people would go nuts.
---

M_Live posted...

Xelltrix posted...

Who gives a damn about "beliefs" versus facts?

Most people currently on the planet including nearly all currently democracticaly elected officials across the globe.
---

Just let natural selection run its course
---

I mean there's a part of me that would like to say "Yes they should be vaccinated anyway"

But I don't know

Forcing people to be vaccinated against their will sets a pretty troubling standard
---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

Nah, just let the nonbelievers die off. Too many people would go nuts.

This is normally how I'd feel in situations outside of vaccines, but the kids aren't nonbelievers, so why should they suffer because their parents are idiots?

I could absolutely care less what people believe. If 43.7% of people choose to believe that, then they're idiots, but in no way should their kids have to potentially suffer because of that. It should absolutely be mandated, and any parent that tries to get out of it should be locked up for child neglect/abuse.
---

Doom_Art posted...

I mean there's a part of me that would like to say "Yes they should be vaccinated anyway"

But I don't know

Forcing people to be vaccinated against their will sets a pretty troubling standard

No it isn't. You're erradicating all disease. The quality of life of mankind would improve dramatically.
Then again, those who don't get the vaccine would eventually die off, since the need for medicine would go down, so artificial selection at it's finnest.
---

jenningsnash313 posted...

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

Nah, just let the nonbelievers die off. Too many people would go nuts.

This is normally how I'd feel in situations outside of vaccines, but the kids aren't nonbelievers, so why should they suffer because their parents are idiots?

I could absolutely care less what people believe. If 43.7% of people choose to believe that, then they're idiots, but in no way should their kids have to potentially suffer because of that. It should absolutely be mandated, and any parent that tries to get out of it should be locked up for child neglect/abuse.

Nooooooo, it would cause way more harm than good. Im imagining the vaccine is like mercury to the 43% How would parents react if the government forced mercury injections on kids? People would be tearing down walls and burning shit up

I just don't think it's ethical to force something to make people better if it has the potential to make everyone worse off. Besides, majority of kids would be fine until they're 18 and get it themselves.
---

What's the scientific consensus on possible side effects?
---

It depends... Has this drug been proven beyond debate to be 100% effective and 100% safe, with the studies that proved these things being 100% trustworthy and the doctors administering them being 100% ethical and competent?
---

Depends first on if it actully is harmful, the second question is how harmful it supposedly is. I would need to know those answers before I can know my response.
---

SpiralDrift posted...

It depends... Has this drug been proven beyond debate to be 100% effective and 100% safe, with the studies that proved these things being 100% trustworthy and the doctors administering them being 100% ethical and competent?

As much as any other safe drug in history yes.

charey posted...

Depends first on if it actully is harmful,

no

the second question is how harmful it supposedly is. I would need to know those answers before I can know my response.

Supposedly it causes Autism, Hepatitis B, Homosexuality, Anthrax, Yellow Fever and hair loss.

This has been debunked by doctors but is heavily pushed by the religious after a quack doctor falsified research marking those claims.

teepan95 posted...

What's the scientific consensus on possible side effects?

Negligible.
---

If they choose not to do so, I guess it's a form of natural selection if their children catch certain diseases. We'd afterwards would be able to put much more attention on other medical things as well, which would also be great.
---

CoolBeansAvl posted...

Just let natural selection run its course

---

In that case, yes.

It's not the fault of the children that they have shitty parents.
---

CoolBeansAvl posted...

Just let natural selection run its course

This so much, don't make it mandatory, let the stupid die off from diseases.

Everyone worthwhile wins.
---

Dustin1280 posted...

CoolBeansAvl posted...

Just let natural selection run its course

This so much, don't make it mandatory, let the stupid die off from diseases.

Everyone worthwhile wins.

It won't be the stupid dying though.

It'll be their children.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

SpiralDrift posted...

It depends... Has this drug been proven beyond debate to be 100% effective and 100% safe, with the studies that proved these things being 100% trustworthy and the doctors administering them being 100% ethical and competent?

As much as any other safe drug in history yes.

Since lots of "safe" drugs were later proven to be unsafe, or at least unsafe given a specific set of circumstances, I'd have to say it's unethical. Without absolute certainty it would be wrong to force people to take the drug. People should be allowed to weigh the risks, etc, and make a decision for themselves and their families.

That said, even if it's ethically wrong it could still end up preventing more deaths than any unseen side effects may cause. So while it may be wrong on an individual level to force it, it may still be better overall.
---

teepan95 posted...

It'll be their children.

That is unfortunate, but if two stupid people have a kid, what is the chance that the kid is also going to be stupid or alternatively raised in away that makes them as foolish as their parents.

Better just let natural selection run it's course.
---

SpiralDrift posted...

Since lots of "safe" drugs were later proven to be unsafe

Well quite.
---

Dustin1280 posted...

teepan95 posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

CoolBeansAvl posted...

Just let natural selection run its course

This so much, don't make it mandatory, let the stupid die off from diseases.

Everyone worthwhile wins.

It won't be the stupid dying though.

It'll be their children.

That is unfortunate, but if two stupid people have a kid, what is the chance that the kid was also be stupid or alternatively raised in away that makes them as foolish as their parents.

Children are malleable. School/university would go a long way towards educating them for the better.

Idk, letting children die doesn't sit right with me.
---

Honestly @teepan95 I do respect that opinion, believe me.

But if a drug has been PROVEN to prevent all diseases and you are too stupid to give this to your kid because of something UN-PROVEN.

Then the problem will solve itself.
---

This isn't a natural selection thing, the parents in this scenario are endangering their children, not themselves. Same story as with vaccines or withholding medication to use prayer or some other stupid measure. In a scenario like this, that should be considered willful negligence and should not be allowed.
---

The advantage is that particular part of the gene pool AND way of thinking, dies off (or at least we hope it does).
---

Dustin1280 posted...

Honestly @teepan95 I do respect that opinion, believe me.

But if a drug has been PROVEN to prevent all diseases and you are too stupid to give this to your kid because of something UN-PROVEN.

Then the problem will solve itself.

I understand your point, and if such a situation were to happen, I probably would accept your method (not in the least because of government overreach)

but I'd have a hell of a lot of sleepless nights afterwards <_<
---

Dustin1280 posted...

The advantage is that particular part of the gene pool AND way of thinking, dies off (or at least we hope it does).

If you say so.

There will be plenty of people for generations to come who still have diseases if nearly half the population's kids (and religious people are more likely to have kids, especially Muslims) reject the drug.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

religious people are more likely to have kids, especially Muslims

I realise this is anecdotal

But I'm Muslim and I'd make my children get vaccinated

And do outreach stuff with Muslims who don't want their child vaccinated
---

teepan95 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

religious people are more likely to have kids, especially Muslims

I realise this is anecdotal

But I'm Muslim and I'd make my children get vaccinated

And do outreach stuff with Muslims who don't want their child vaccinated

Cool
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

teepan95 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

religious people are more likely to have kids, especially Muslims

I realise this is anecdotal

But I'm Muslim and I'd make my children get vaccinated

And do outreach stuff with Muslims who don't want their child vaccinated

Cool

Lmao

I guess your implication is correct though

Saddening as it is
---

If you wanna get technical the percentage isn't stated as to whether it includes experts in the relevant areas, and if it did it would suggest there is something harmful. TC said that it would prevent all diseases, not that it was void of risk
---

@DEKMStephens posted...

If you wanna get technical the percentage isn't stated as to whether it includes experts in the relevant areas, and if it did it would suggest there is something harmful. TC said that it would prevent all diseases, not that it was void of risk

UnfairRepresent posted...

SpiralDrift posted...

It depends... Has this drug been proven beyond debate to be 100% effective and 100% safe, with the studies that proved these things being 100% trustworthy and the doctors administering them being 100% ethical and competent?

As much as any other safe drug in history yes.

charey posted...

Depends first on if it actully is harmful,

no

the second question is how harmful it supposedly is. I would need to know those answers before I can know my response.

Supposedly it causes Autism, Hepatitis B, Homosexuality, Anthrax, Yellow Fever and hair loss.

This has been debunked by doctors but is heavily pushed by the religious after a quack doctor falsified research marking those claims.

teepan95 posted...

What's the scientific consensus on possible side effects?

Negligible.

---

Is it ethical? Yes, but the backlash would be enormous. This is the type of action that causes people like Trump to get elected.
---

teepan95 posted...

Well, if you want to get technical there he says it is as safe as any safe drug and then goes on to say it isn't harmful. As a student of biology these two statements are at somewhat odds with each other
---

DEKMStephens posted...

teepan95 posted...

Well, if you want to get technical there he says it is as safe as any safe drug and then goes on to say it isn't harmful. As a student of biology these two statements are at somewhat odds with each other

Side effects aren't necessarily harmful

Plus he goes on to say that the side effects are negligible

Also, I see your biology and raise you a chemistry-turned-chemical-engineering student :D
---

teepan95 posted...

DEKMStephens posted...

teepan95 posted...

Well, if you want to get technical there he says it is as safe as any safe drug and then goes on to say it isn't harmful. As a student of biology these two statements are at somewhat odds with each other

Side effects aren't necessarily harmful

Plus he goes on to say that the side effects are negligible

Also, I see your biology and raise you a chemistry-turned-chemical-engineering student :D

Suppose, but even a non 'harmful' side effect could still be considered unacceptable. Say it leads to a slight difference in hormone levels during my development, the child growing up to be unharmed, but having more feminine/masculine features or altered fertility. Or leading males to grow female breasts. Sure they aren't harming anyone but at what cooosts :0
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

If you say so.

There will be plenty of people for generations to come who still have diseases if nearly half the population's kids (and religious people are more likely to have kids, especially Muslims) reject the drug.

You are right of course, it WOULD take generations however it would ultimately lead to a more enlightened society once it has run it's course (however long that would take)
---

DEKMStephens posted...

Suppose, but even a non 'harmful' side effect could still be considered unacceptable. Say it leads to a slight difference in hormone levels during my development, the child growing up to be unharmed, but having more feminine/masculine features or altered fertility. Or leading males to grow female breasts. Sure they aren't harming anyone but at what cooosts :0

I'd consider that harmful tbh

Plus such side effects are hard to test for, aren't they? Or do generation studies with animals pick up on that sort of thing?
---

@UnfairRepresent

This vaccine, how does it work if someone with it has a kid with someone w/o it?

Does it get passed on, is it 50/50, does it need to be reapplied?

What about if two people who have it have a kid? 100% or re-application?
---

teepan95 posted...

DEKMStephens posted...

Suppose, but even a non 'harmful' side effect could still be considered unacceptable. Say it leads to a slight difference in hormone levels during my development, the child growing up to be unharmed, but having more feminine/masculine features or altered fertility. Or leading males to grow female breasts. Sure they aren't harming anyone but at what cooosts :0

I'd consider that harmful tbh

Plus such side effects are hard to test for, aren't they? Or do generation studies with animals pick up on that sort of thing?

Side effects are usually better described as off target effects because it results from a drug hitting a target other than the intended ones. Some are fairly simple to predict because it makes sense, like cancer drugs usually hit cells that are dividing faster. Obviously this is expected to effect other fast dividing cells such as skin cells (ie hair falls out) and gastrointestinal cells (leading to harder to digest food and keeping food down). Others on the otherhand may be completely unexpected such as heart medication leading to heightened risk of breast cancer. So basically the answer is that it varies. And your statement kind if fulfills the prophecy of how vague the idea of safe side effects really is
---

Dustin1280 posted...

@UnfairRepresent

This vaccine, how does it work if someone with it has a kid with someone w/o it?

Does it get passed on, is it 50/50, does it need to be reapplied?

What about if two people who have it have a kid? 100% or re-application?

It does not get passed on

Every child would have to take it.

Thankfully it's dirt cheap to manufacture
---

fenderbender321 posted...

As long as it isn't enforced with violence, it would be ethical.

I imagine it would be forced the same way we "enforce" vaccines.
---

You can't get autism if you die from polio
---

The situation is no different with vaccines.

Ethically, patient autonomy is prime. It needs to strike a balance with beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, but any other answer is just reverting to the old day's of paternalistic medicine.

Doesn't mean society couldn't encourage it in indirect ways like we do now with vaccines. You can bar kids from public school, but that wouldn't touch the private school or home-schooled population.
---

CE is less divided on this than I thought they would be
---

What happens if a parent refuses?
---

BillySastard posted...

What happens if a parent refuses?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zC6KcFn87U
---