Skip to main content

A Bioethical Argument for Vaccination

Decisions concerning only oneself are not arguments, but simple decisions. Often framed in terms of pros and cons, this simple debate is one where either answer is valid and acceptable. You shouldn't be forced to get vaccinated just because it's good for you. As an autonomous individual, you get to decide when to take risks, when to go against statistics, and when to engage in a little recreational danger. This kind of risk is something we do a lot of as a species: motorcycling because it's fun even though cars are safer; base jumping from the Burj Khalifa when it's much safer to just not; dodging essential vaccines even though that's really stupid (whatever gets you that adrenaline rush, I guess.) I would have no objection to people opting out of vaccination if it only affected them, but it doesn't, it affects everyone, like all 7.97 billion of us. Because it affects more people than just yourself, it's a moral question. So, let's talk about how your 'personal' choice not to get vaccinated affects others. 

Firstly: herd immunity. When vaccines are created, lots of different factors are used to predict how effective they will be. Vaccines rely on a concept called 'herd immunity' which is when rates of a disease's transmission are sufficiently low enough to ensure a minimal chance of an unvaccinated individual becoming infected. Secondly: mutation possibility. A large frequency of cases of disease increases the possibility that that disease might mutate. Mutated diseases are much harder to cure, and much harder to stomp out, as each mutation could require a new vaccine. Therefore, the need for everyone eligible to be vaccinated quickly is essential to the disease's eradication. 

In 1859, British philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that "my freedom is limited by the harm it would cause others." That isn't exactly applicable here, as your 'freedom' (to not get vaccinated) isn't exactly hindered by the 'harm it would cause to others.' One or two unvaccinated individuals don't irreversibly damage society, the damage is minimal if not nonexistent. I would be more inclined to side with American Bioethicist Travis N. Rieder's evaluation, in that the claim becomes "my freedom is limited by very small contributions my action might make to large, collective harms.”

If I were arguing for our current system of elective vaccination, I might say 'can we truly have a duty to make such a tiny contribution to society?' When the question is phrased like that, it's hard to advocate so fiercely for such a huge societal shift for such a minuscule contribution. However, I believe this is just careless moral mathematics. Instead, we should consider that even though taking such a tiny step for the smallest possibility of saving a life might seem useless, the huge value of that life justifies using the word 'duty' to describe an individual's responsibility to be vaccinated.

 Now, to play devil's advocate, I'll attempt to convince you not to get vaccinated. Getting vaccinated - having a fluid injected into your body - is an incredibly intimate action. American Philosopher Dr Margret Little has argued that sex, gestation, and childbirth are, due to their intimate nature, not demandable. Then perhaps the same should apply to vaccinations: nobody can demand you have sex, nobody can demand you birth a child, and nobody can demand you get vaccinated. 

However, whilst convincing, the 'intimacy' argument is flawed because sex, gestation, and childbirth are all personal decisions. Vaccination is not. Whilst I'm not suggesting that the immunocompromised should be pinned down and injected with their kryptonite, I am advocating for this: pseudo-mandatory vaccination. I'll never argue that people should be injected with anything they haven't consented to - fully informed of the risks, but I will argue that those who choose not to be vaccinated should be barred from all government-owned establishments: hospitals to police stations, preschools to town halls. The voluntarily unvaccinated should be erased from public life to ensure the kind of public health security that could be the norm without their existence. 

07/09/2021

by Frankie E.J. Robinson

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Churches, Charnel Houses, and Catholic Repentance

So, in the 17th Century, the Portuguese were really into God. This meant that people were also really into being buried at their local church, cathedral, or other Christian-flavored places of worship. Over time, these place's cemeteries became full of bodies, and most churches resorted to stuffing skeletons behind the walls, underneath the floorboards, or just deeper into the cemetery. This meant that after a while, Iberian churches were just absolutely full of bodies, which wasn't exactly sustainable. Skeletons aren't exactly known for being that decomposable, even if their flesh vanishes pretty quickly, which led to churches literally overflowing with bones. During times of disasters and plague, churches would have to bury thousands of bodies at once, which left little room for other bodies.  The solution for this, the Portuguese Catholic establishment concluded, was bone houses, which became charnels in English. They're also known as Ossuaries in Latin, from the Lati...
Post a Comment
Read more

An Argument for Barbie's Feminism

Barbie is almost always criticized by feminists, who claim that Barbie exemplifies the kind of compulsory heterosexuality, white imperialism, and oppressive patriarchy that feminists so hate. These claims aren't just based on suppositions, but more so on the heap of ethnographic research conducted amongst Mattel's consumers.  Barbie is a household name, having been a computer engineer, astronaut, rockstar, doctor, and even a presidential candidate. Over the last few years, Mattel has given Barbie a woke new makeover fit for the 21st century. I don't doubt for even a second that Mattel's re-invigoration of Barbie is motivated by anything but a consumerist need for more profit, but that doesn't mean that she isn't a feminist. One can have skewed motivations for their feminism, whilst still existing in a space that benefits and benefits and uplifts women. One of their latest adverts really does exemplify Mattel's newfound liberalism - and pulls on my heartstrin...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Utilitarianism, Death, and The Morality of Truth

In philosophy, Utilitarianism is a group of beliefs within normative (behavioural) ethics that, very basically, attempts to maximize utility - often defined as well-being, or the abstract 'greater good.' To give an example, Jeremy Bentham - often regarded as the father of utilitarianism - described Utilitarianism as  "that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness … to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered."  Utilitarianism is a form of  consequentialism , which is another group of philosophical beliefs that argues the consequences of any action are the only means of describing morality - for this argument: right and wrong.  Utilitarianism.net is a site run by utilitarians and furthers their argument that utilitarianism is the only morally correct ideology on the matter because 's uffering is bad, and happiness is good. What could be...
Post a Comment
Read more