Public health: Not vaccinated? Not acceptable
What should we do about people who decline vaccination for themselves or their children and put the public at risk by fueling the resurgence of nearly eradicated diseases?
What does society do when one person's behavior puts the greater community at risk? We make them stop. We pass laws, or impose economic rules or find some other way to discourage individual behaviors that threaten the greater common good. You don't get to drive drunk. You don't get to smoke in public places. You don't even get to leave your house if you catch some particularly infectious disease.
1 comment:
Let me play devil's advocate. There are some real risks vaccination, very small admittedly and not including autism as much as some would argue that it does. There is some real cost/benefit, and while the benefits of vaccination accrue to the individual and society, the cost is almost all the individuals.
Vaccines do not fall out of the sky, but are produced by companies who want to make money. I am not convinced that Big Pharma always has the best interests of society at heart when there's some conflict with their quarterly returns.
There's an unfortunate history of releasing drugs prematurely then discovering serious problems (thalidomide, sibutramine), and doing studies on people who are kept in the dark (Tuskeegee). The issue of redundant diagnostic tests and health care costs in general are related. The public has become more skeptical of medical necessity these days, with some justification.
Are people who refuse to get vaccinated, or have their children vaccinated, essentially Mary Mallons? Yes. But if we're going to put them away on an island, we need to make sure that the other part of the social contract, pharmaceutical companies and public safeguards, are as good as they possibly can be.
Post a Comment