NationStates Jolt Archive

I submitted a proposal to reduce infectious disease by compulsary vaccination. Since there was no healthcare option I put the propsal in the category 'Human Rights' as this was the category 'Keep the world Disease Free' was in. It was deleted for a category error. Which category should I put it in? It doesn't seem to fit in any. Is it social justice? It would improve welfare but I'm not sure it would decrease the income gap..... Help! Please!?:headbang:

It would be helpful if you would post the text.

The Epidemic Prevention Protocol used the Moral Decency category.

Basically complusory vaccinations take away a civil right in the interest of public health and safety. A strong case could be made for Moral Decency as the category.

Please post the proposal here. I actually think that in the case of minors that a strong case could be made for a proposed resolution to standardize vaccination programs -- think about the way the RL UN sought to end smallpox in the 1960s and 1970s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox


There are two existing NS UN Resolutions I highly recommend you look into (and perhaps acknowledge):

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Epidemic_Prevention_Protocol
&
Erradicate Smallpox (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=97)

(Evidently I've fogotten to include Erradicate Smallpox in the UN Subject Index ... I'll fix that this week since the subject is at hand.)

This is the text for the proposal. Small pox is capable of being wiped out by vaccination, as is leprosy. We are also all aware of the reduction of fatlity when vaccinations for childhood diseases are implimented.

Observing: That people who are too young to have vaccines for disease such as meningitis, measles, mumps and rubella are being infected with these potentially fatal and debilitating diseases by the older people who have not had the vaccination and have the disease later in life.

Noting: If all people that can safely do so have a vaccine the incidence of a disease decreases greatly, even for those who cannot safely have the vaccine as the infectious agent has fewer reservoirs to survive in. This will increase the general welfare of all a nations inhabitants as well.

Further Noting: That vaccination against a disease is much cheaper that treating a disease, therefore is less of an economic burden.

Proposing: Compulsory childhood vaccinations for all who can safely be vaccinated.

I'd say Moral Decency, Mild.

i would not support a law that makes any kind of action towards the human body of a free person that did no harm to society (and wich is not in the position to do harm to society yet) "compulsary". I would be in favor of "supporting" vactination at world-wide/ nation wide level. But "compulsary vaccination" is against the human right of a person to decide what to do with one's body. Think about a person for wich vactination is against his/her religion, or he/she has a phobia against needles.

i would say: "support vactination". even with money from the gvt. but not force people to do it.

and for disease control: in my country people with infectious diseases would be helped by the gvt if they didn't had enough money for treatment because infectious disease is a direct danger to others( if they would break their leg they wouldn't be helped by the gvt). also they would be prosecuted if they refused medical care AND made others sick. if they refused medical care and died on their own... their choice.

about children: if they are small enough and live with adults (like babys), let the adults decide. if the adult says no (let's say religious reasons) but the child says yes, make the vactination (because it's for the good of the child). if both say no, don't make it (but ask again, from time to time, until the child reaches adulthood. if it's stil no, let it be. if it's yes, put the needle in him). if both say yes, make it. but no way "compulsary vaccination"

I don't like it, I mean, we have the right as indeviduals to or not to take certain medications (except in the case of the criminally dangerously insane). I would, however, suggest a resolution legislating quarantine procedures etc...(I think one came up before, not sure if it passed).

Surely it is every child who is too young to have a given vaccinations right not to die from a disease passed on by an adult who has chosen not to have a vaccination.

Diseases can be erradicated by a vaccination programme to the benefit of all, why should a few selfish individuals prevent that. In an ideal world everyone would understand the benefit to society, but nowhere is ideal.

Small pox was wiped out by such a programme, and leprosy could be if everyone would cooperate (which they are not).

Surely letting a child die because of an adult refusal to vaccinate is as much of a crime as the adult killing the child. You can choose to act just as you can choose not to act. Not murdering people is a choice, but murder is still illegal. Therefore the same should apply to vaccination.

Inaction requires the same will as action. Not acting to prevent death where possible is the same as killing.

putting stuff in one's body against their will is violating one's rights, even if it is for one's good health. and for children: the tutor/parent has the right to raise his child as he sees fit, until the child is old enough to want something else. there are religions that forbid anything not 100% natural, so this resolution is breaking the rights of those religious. i'm against it.

but i'm for supporting vactination.

putting stuff in one's body against their will is violating one's rights, even if it is for one's good health. and for children: the tutor/parent has the right to raise his child as he sees fit, until the child is old enough to want something else. there are religions that forbid anything not 100% natural, so this resolution is breaking the rights of those religious. i'm against it.

but i'm for supporting vactination.

I'd like to suggest that children aren't solely the responsibility of parents, but also wards of the state.

Mandatory vaccinations for school children are about protecting the rest of the children from the will of the parents whom choose to not protect their own children.

In other words, if you want to send your child to a school with my child, I should now have a say in your child's health as well.

Howsabout mandatory vaccinations for common and highly infectious diseases only, that's fair.

I'd like to suggest that children aren't solely the responsibility of parents, but also wards of the state.

Mandatory vaccinations for school children are about protecting the rest of the children from the will of the parents whom choose to not protect their own children.

In other words, if you want to send your child to a school with my child, I should now have a say in your child's health as well.

1)depends on the type of government, my country is LIBERTARIAN (or it's gonna be when i finish with it), this means as little state implication as possible (look at anarcho-capitalist post if u're intrested, it's similar). and it also means that the children are the responsability of the parents (if they refuse this responsability (abbandon) they become the responsability of private charitys, not of the government.)
2)if you want YOUR child protected, make YOUR child take the shot. then he'll be protected. leave my child alone, it's for me to decide (and that is only until he's old enough to make the decision for himself. that means when he gets the concept of disease. something like 3-5 years old)
3)in my country schools will become private own businesses as soon as i'll be able to do that. that means the school may/may not allow my child or yours depending on their requierments. you may ask the school not allow children that are not inoculated and they will choose if it's profitable (or not) for them to listen to you

but this is away from subject. my opinion remains, and there is no way in hell you're gona make me say it's ok to put something in my body (or my child's body) if i (or he) don't want it. and that's what "mandatory" is gonna lead to

make it "encourages" (help, not force) and i might change my mind

1)depends on the type of government, my country is LIBERTARIAN (or it's gonna be when i finish with it), this means as little state implication as possible (look at anarcho-capitalist post if u're intrested, it's similar). and it also means that the children are the responsability of the parents (if they refuse this responsability (abbandon) they become the responsability of private charitys, not of the government.)
2)if you want YOUR child protected, make YOUR child take the shot. then he'll be protected. leave my child alone, it's for me to decide (and that is only until he's old enough to make the decision for himself. that means when he gets the concept of disease. something like 3-5 years old)
3)in my country schools will become private own businesses as soon as i'll be able to do that. that means the school may/may not allow my child or yours depending on their requierments. you may ask the school not allow children that are not inoculated and they will choose if it's profitable (or not) for them to listen to you

but this is away from subject. my opinion remains, and there is no way in hell you're gona make me say it's ok to put something in my body (or my child's body) if i (or he) don't want it. and that's what "mandatory" is gonna lead to

make it "encourages" (help, not force) and i might change my mind

What about the children whose parents don't care? They are the most vunerable members of a society and they will not be protected. Its the same as all these things about parents making decisions for children. Its ok for children with well educated, caring parents who can fight their corner and do whats best for them, but it leaves behind those children whose parents don't fit into the aforementioned category. Why should they suffer?

A three year old cannot understand death, or deformity. On any large issue a child will always do what they percieve adults want them to do, thats why there is so much problems with child testimony in courts, so having the child decide is impracticle. Also at three to five they could already have died of, for instance, measles or meningitis (meningitis is particularly prevelent in the under fives).

1)depends on the type of government, my country is LIBERTARIAN (or it's gonna be when i finish with it), this means as little state implication as possible (look at anarcho-capitalist post if u're intrested, it's similar). and it also means that the children are the responsability of the parents (if they refuse this responsability (abbandon) they become the responsability of private charitys, not of the government.)

The ambassador from Vladase is correct, different societies assume different responsibilities with respect to children and the responsibilities of raising children.

The problem though is that the UN has essentially mandated that children are entitled to a basic civil right (notice I did not say human right ... there are non-human nations amongst us, so naturally Mikitivity prefers to use the term "civil") of receiving a quality education. However, if receiving that education means going to a school where there is a high risk of becoming ill (due to other children not being vaccinated), then the basic civil right might exist in theory, but in practice high risk of disease or illness reduces that right.

In other words, if I were to say, "All citizens have the right to clothing and shelter, but in order to get clothing in shelter must circle NationStates twice", does that right really exist???

That is why I've advocated that my government, which can be best described as a liberal capitalist democracy, actually feels that the UN actually could host a debate on vaccinations for children ... the vaccination programs are tied to the other responsibilities that this body has already placed on nations.


2)if you want YOUR child protected, make YOUR child take the shot. then he'll be protected. leave my child alone, it's for me to decide (and that is only until he's old enough to make the decision for himself. that means when he gets the concept of disease. something like 3-5 years old)

Aside from the fact that the argument I've provided is based on the idea that sometimes parents don't have equal ability to provide for their children, another thing to consider is that an ill child can also be a burdern on the teacher(s) and other children in a classroom.

Let's pretend that I am a student and coughing in class. My spasms might distrupt the other children and our teacher, thus making it harder to learn. Part of the reason for mandatory vaccination programs for children isn't to just protect the child getting the vaccination, but to also free up resources to focus a classroom on being a classroom and not a hospital.

One might say, "If your child is sick, PLEASE keep him or her at home." This is essentially the old liberatarian ideal, "The right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins." And sadly many parents in most societies have demonstrated that they aren't always faithful in seeing to it that their children are vaccinated.

The capitalistic approach here is ultimately what is guiding the people of Mikitivity to require vaccinations ... by having the local canton purchase enough vaccinations for all children and by having public clinics set up specifically to administer the vaccinations and process the paper work related to the vaccinations there is a cost savings. In fact, an economist would call this "Economies of Scale". The more vaccines Mikitivity cantons purchase, the greater the savings is. And the more centralized (though flexible in scheduling) the vaccination program can be, again, the more the canton can ultimately provide the other civil rights that the UN has promised the citizens of our nations, including the right to education.


3)in my country schools will become private own businesses as soon as i'll be able to do that. that means the school may/may not allow my child or yours depending on their requierments. you may ask the school not allow children that are not inoculated and they will choose if it's profitable (or not) for them to listen to you

but this is away from subject. my opinion remains, and there is no way in hell you're gona make me say it's ok to put something in my body (or my child's body) if i (or he) don't want it. and that's what "mandatory" is gonna lead to

make it "encourages" (help, not force) and i might change my mind

On your final note, I completely agree with you that the most succesful way for the United Nations to address this issue would be with a Mild Moral Decency resolution that would "Encourage" nations to adopt mandatory vaccination programs for children attending public schools.

I honestly think that our two governments are much closer in our position on this issue ... the primary difference is that some of these programs already exist in Mikitivity, while it sounds as though your nation might be seeking its own solution. Certainly we can both agree that there is an issue here that is worth discussing, as I feel I've learned more about your nation simply from listening to you.

Respectfully,
Howie T. Katzman

Individualism fails when it comes to issues such as vaccination. A parent or guardian's failure to vaccinate their ward not only endangers the child but also those around them. [* ooc: Witness Nigeria's failure to participate fully in the polio vaccination drive in northern Africa. Result? Polio - so nearly eradicated - remains a threat. *]

The dream of effective pseudo-anarchic nations remains merely a dream, unless all citizens participate in such ventures. And then what do we have? Society. Community. And where is your precious individualism then?

Apologies, delegates, I have digressed unnecessarily. I will summarise my point thus: any resolutions calling for vaccinations must by necessity be strong and forceful, with no exceptions.

Benedictions,

T
Aside from the fact that the argument I've provided is based on the idea that sometimes parents don't have equal ability to provide for their children, another thing to consider is that an ill child can also be a burdern on the teacher(s) and other children in a classroom.


I am totaly FOR helping the ones that want vaccination, but can't afford it. That's what charity is for. And i would like my country to have some of them.(it's only a few days old, it has not passed many laws)

But you must think of the ones that DO NOT WANT vaccinations (and you are aware that in real life there are such people and they invoke religious reasons). We must defend their rights too.

Also about cost efficency you're right, mass vaccination is more cost efficient. But that is not a strong enough reasons to brake the rights of those not wanting vaccination. I am for mass vaccination, but not for everybody, just for people who want it (or are indiferent towards it)

Also in private schools there will definatly have their own rules. Some schools will allow sick people, some won't. And as a parent you get to chose where you'll put your child.

I honestly think that our two governments are much closer in our position on this issue ... the primary difference is that some of these programs already exist in Mikitivity, while it sounds as though your nation might be seeking its own solution. Certainly we can both agree that there is an issue here that is worth discussing, as I feel I've learned more about your nation simply from listening to you.

You're right, you allready have the programs and my country is looking for them (again, it's only a few days old). You're also right that this matter is of international importance and it's worth discussing. This is why i joined the UN (and probably most people), to try and find solutions to international problems.

BUT i think in this case the solution most suited would be something in the lines of "enforcing" governments that have the financial posibility (and helping the ones who do not have that posibility through international funds, acces to charity, etc) to make vaccines to ALL WHO WANT (or at least are indiferent and not strongly oposing) them, while letting the pople who do not want the shots in peace.