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

Capitalism, Class Mobility, and Ratatouille

Remy, the main character in Pixar's Ratatouille, is a metaphor for the literally starving, poor artist, who feels resentment towards a capitalist society whilst trying to climb its ranks and escape poverty. My mind simply shall not be changed. In the film, Remy's family exist purely to survive, and his dad has evolved to ignore Remy's love of his art - cooking - and dismiss his passions because passions are for the rich. His father only starts to care about Remy's talents when they become economically viable, and therefore beneficial to their survival as the poor.  When you start to think of the rats as the poor, and the humans as the rich, it starts to make much more sense. Remy yearns for the human (rich) experience because they have the ability to create art and pursue their passions with no care for material expense or wasted time. This is true in our society. Whilst the rich are free to pursue passions on a whim, able to purchase expensive materials easily, the poo...
Post a Comment
Read more

An Agnostic Defense of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Yesterday, on my regular post-school depressing Twitter scroll, I came across a repost of an article entitled "Mormons Aren't Nice People: a bitter victims [sic] deep dive into very old theology." Firstly - brushing past the fact that victims is misspelled because I'm not an educational classist - I'd like to point out how incredibly generalised this statement is, just in the title. This author, that's 'Sadie Lee' on Medium, isn't looking for a resolution, and place to unload, a resolution, or even an apology. She's looking for conflict. As a rather devoted agnostic, I'm not known for running to the rescue of horribly oppressed theists, but I will argue against the public slander of a really quite legitimate belief system.  Ignoring the inflammatory title, and proceeding to the main body of the article, I found out that Lee is actually a survivor of a lot of shame, trauma, and hard times at the hands of people who just happened to be member...
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