Tarsonis wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:Bell rolls his eyes, "There's a puzzle piece here that people arguing against this seem to be missing: the comparable interests people have in not getting vaccinations are smaller than those interests by the state and other individuals in not having to deal with a public health crisis. Lets watch:
"The state has an interest in preventing public health crises and avoiding the associated costs. Preventing death, overburden on hospital systems, a drain on effective workforce and the general mayhem that comes with an epidemic all cost money and well-being of citizens. This interest is high based on the high cost and the high impact to citizens. Vaccines are the least expensive and invasive way to prevent this.
"The general public has an interest in not being subject to such epidemics. The general public doesn't want to be dead, permanently harmed, or even laid low for the time it takes to recover, thus costing them medical care and denying them the opportunity to work, as well as exposing them to harm. This interest is high, as they are the ones who have to bear that risk personally.
"The general public also has an interest in not being denied the right to choose their medical care and in their bodily sovereignty. This is generally high, but can be scaled based on the degree of violation. Being forced to give up a kidney? High, as this is a major operation with lifelong consequences. Being forced to be stuck with a needle, leaving them with momentary pain and symptoms that go away in hours? Much lower than the kidney.
"Two high interests against one low interest is a simple equation. Even if we give the general public a high interest in their own sovereignty, that's still two high interests against one high interest. Since we have other similar metrics in society regarding individual freedoms against the greater good (the state's interest in preventing widespread drug addiction against the individual's right to utilize any substance they like, the state's interest in protecting biologically significant species against the individual's right to extract resources on their property, the state's interest in protecting vulnerable individuals from abuse versus the individual's right to consent to sex, violence, or poor working conditions), this seems pretty straightforward. We are in support."
"Congratulations you've just opened up the door to abuse by setting the precedent of the abridgment of human rights, based in the degree of violation compared to compelling public interest. Today, a Kidney is not seen as out weighed by the public interest. But the status quo will not always be so.
For example: Society has a compelling interest to keep Person A alive, for whatever reason. They're the president or something. Person A. needs a kidney. Person B is the only compatible doner, they refuse. The state considering interest of the state being high, and the interest of person B being low enough, forcibly excises a kidney and transplants it into Person A.
Under your precedent, such action is deemed ethical.
You can rail I'm making a slippery slope fallacy all you want, but this is the principle consideration when it comes to abridging rights in a common law system. Any abridgment in rights sets precedent for further abridgment. The fact that you even acknowledge that it's a violation in your argument is troublesome. You know I'm right, you're just trying to equivocate the violation as being acceptable.
To which I re ask my question: How much must someone be violated, before it becomes wrong?"
Exactly!
