Human Rights in a pandemic

[studiot]

I have always loved this Norman Rockwell picture

600 × 635

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

And yet we do it all the time. We tell them to drive under the speed limit and stay off the grass, and punish them when we catch them doing those things. Laws and regulations are part of the equation.

Without the context I provided your response would be unassailable. But it is not reasonable to punish people when they do follow the rules then express outrage when they are hesitant the next time they are presented with a set of rules. Authority has broken the two way bond with many groups and now should deal with that loss of trust themselves instead of punishing those certain groups who do not readily get on board with the new rules.

Edited December 15, 2021 by zapatos

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Without the context I provided your response would be unassailable. But it is not reasonable to punish people when they do follow the rules then express outrage when they are hesitant the next time they are presented with a set of rules. Authority has broken the two way bond with many groups and now should deal with that loss of trust themselves instead of punishing those certain groups who do not readily get on board with the new rules.

It’s not like this is a new phenomenon that appeared with COVID.

[zapatos]

Just now, swansont said:

It’s not like this is a new phenomenon that appeared with COVID.

Correct. Which is one of the reasons we don't have mandatory vaccinations for COVID.

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

Enforcing safe vaccines against a deadly disease in public spaces would fall under that mandate, for example.

I think it is important to define what is meant by "enforcing" and "deadly". As I said before I generally feel that the response by authorities to this pandemic has been adequate, including the enforcement of vaccine mandates against this deadly disease. I wish more people viewed public health the way our members do, but I'm reluctant to support the government mandating 'vaccine or fine/confinement/etc.' for people outside the employ of the government. I have no problem with not granting people privileges to the unvaccinated (access to private property or employment for example) but taking their money or freedom of movement unless they give up body autonomy seems unwarranted. 

[CharonY]

27 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I think it is important to define what is meant by "enforcing" and "deadly". As I said before I generally feel that the response by authorities to this pandemic has been adequate, including the enforcement of vaccine mandates against this deadly disease. I wish more people viewed public health the way our members do, but I'm reluctant to support the government mandating 'vaccine or fine/confinement/etc.' for people outside the employ of the government. I have no problem with not granting people privileges to the unvaccinated (access to private property or employment for example) but taking their money or freedom of movement unless they give up body autonomy seems unwarranted. 

I think the basis for the approach is the concept or proportionality. Public health groups have to carefully evaluate the various scenarios and look at the health burden in relationship to the necessary measures to alleviate them. Fundamentally the question is how many deaths are we alright with relative to measures to be taken. The burden of the measures themselves must also be taken into account as they themselves may pose public health risks. The issue here is that all we can do is follow best scientific estimates as we will only know in the aftermath how badly it has become. 

For this particular disease, it was pretty clear (at least among health professionals) that, if unchecked, it would in short order disrupt health care systems. In hindsight that has become true and is clearly one of the deadliest pandemic in modern times. So at least the properties of the disease would have warranted more rigorous measures compared to, say SARS or perhaps even Ebola, not because of mere death rates (both have higher case fatality rates) but were also easier to detect, which allowed other containment measures to be sufficient.

But I guess we really can't have absolute certainty when it comes to these measures as at some point a judgment has to be made and clearly we cannot shut everything down each time we find a new virus. Conversely, it also means we need a more robust pipeline to make these evaluations and judgements and not hope that things politically align, as ultimately the biology determines the timeline in which we have to act.

 

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, MigL said:

Would Dimreepr have posted that line if we were discussing welfare recipients ??
Dmreepr should know that drug users are prosecuted ( and arrested ) for illegal drug use, yet they are not turned away at hospitals for complications with illegal drug use.

It was my two peneth on Phi's post in a well defined topic, I see little reason to assume that.

Besides, smoker's are refused treatment everyday if they refuse to give up. There's plenty of things society mandates for the greater good, not carrying a gun springs to mind.

No one should be free to kill people, ignorance is no defence.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Besides, smoker's are refused treatment everyday if they refuse to give up

A systemic refusal? Citation needed.

Continued smoking might e.g. rank them lower for a lung transplant, (similar to an alcoholic and a liver transplant) but that’s not the same as being refused treatment

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

A systemic refusal? Citation needed.

Continued smoking might e.g. rank them lower for a lung transplant, (similar to an alcoholic and a liver transplant) but that’s not the same as being refused treatment

Sure they get initial treatment, I wouldn't have it any other way...

But when offered the choice, do this or die; it's no longer a human right, to take someone with me...

[TheVat]

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

 I have no problem with not granting people privileges to the unvaccinated (access to private property or employment for example) but taking their money or freedom of movement unless they give up body autonomy seems unwarranted. 

Body autonomy?  It's two shots in the arm.  

Just saying maybe some clarification on what body autonomy means, and why it outweighs stopping a pandemic that's killed 800,000 Americans, and millions globally.   

[iNow]

It may also be helpful to think of historical context here, like how the concerns of female bodily autonomy in important healthcare decisions are regularly ignored. Seems that we as a culture tend to only follow this principle of autonomy when we feel like it and ignore it most other times. 

I'd also mention people will still have that choice of saying no to vaccinations and shots. Technically, they're still autonomous beings. They just will lose access to important parts of daily life and infrastructure. Same that happens in schools. You don't get to send your kid to public school if they're not vaccinated. You still have a choice of refusing, but that choice means you're also choosing to keep them out of school, but the autonomy is still yours. 

[zapatos]

29 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Body autonomy?  It's two shots in the arm.  

Just saying maybe some clarification on what body autonomy means, and why it outweighs stopping a pandemic that's killed 800,000 Americans, and millions globally.   

Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity

Edited December 15, 2021 by zapatos

[iNow]

It's just that our choices have consequences. We should not conflate consequences from choosing a certain path with lacking choice / lacking autonomy. Those are different in fundamental and important ways. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Sure they get initial treatment, I wouldn't have it any other way...

But when offered the choice, do this or die; it's no longer a human right, to take someone with me...

That’s not being refused treatment. That’s refusing treatment.

[TheVat]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal.

Thanks.  I was just trying to relate the clearcut cases of violation with getting a couple jabs after you have spent your life, from early childhood, getting jabs as a routine thing.  There seemed to be a difference between that and things like assault, molestation, abduction, forced pregnancy, etc.  

[zapatos]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

It's just that our choices have consequences. We should not conflate consequences from choosing a certain path with lacking choice / lacking autonomy. Those are different in fundamental and important ways. 

I'm not sure if you are under the impression I am conflating the two. What I am suggesting is that essentially forcing a shot on someone is unreasonable in this pandemic. I think that denying access to employment, private spaces, etc. if there is no vaccine is a better approach.

10 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Thanks.  I was just trying to relate the clearcut cases of violation with getting a couple jabs after you have spent your life, from early childhood, getting jabs as a routine thing.  There seemed to be a difference between that and things like assault, molestation, abduction, forced pregnancy, etc.  

I don't think that previously getting a vaccine should disqualify you from refusing future vaccinations.

[TheVat]

Well, sure, you can refuse any vaccinations and then accept consequences, like having to homeschool children or not work with the public. 

My perspective, fwiw:  A virus taking over a person's body and killing them or making them quite sick, possibly for months or years....now THAT seems like an infringement on body autonomy.  I would think requiring people to get two shots or three to fend that violation off, would be at the heart of a social contract and any sane government.  And it seems to be what 95% or more of the US population accepted until about  a year and a few months ago.  Before then, how many people were refusing to work or keeping their children out of school because some shots were required?  How many street corners had soapboxes where they could proclaim their freedom and bodily autonomy?  I just don't remember much concern about that.  

 

Edited December 15, 2021 by TheVat
Fix

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I am suggesting is that essentially forcing a shot on someone is unreasonable in this pandemic. I think that denying access to employment, private spaces, etc. if there is no vaccine is a better approach.

We seem to be aligned. then

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

A virus taking over a person's body and killing them or making them quite sick, possibly for months or years....now THAT seems like an infringement on body autonomy.  I would think requiring people to get two shots or three to fend that violation off, would be at the heart of a social contract and any sane government.

You misunderstand the meaning of body autonomy. It does not mean remaining healthy. It means being in charge of decisions regarding your own body.

You may think that giving up decisions regarding your body to the fools who often run government is a good idea; I do not.

[MigL]

If someone shuld choose not to get vaccinated because they don't trust the fools who run the Government, what protection does everyone else have, when that unprotected person goes grocery shopping ?
Or to work ?
Or any other part of normal life ?

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

It means being in charge of decisions regarding your own body.

And when those decisions also impact other's bodies? Should you be allowed to be around others if you've dowsed yourself with a scent that triggers allergic reactions? You may decide you don't like to wear shoes when you drive, and kick them off as soon as you get in the car, but if they later get jammed under the brake pedal as you approach my car, you've turned a decision regarding your own body into one that very suddenly regards mine as well. 

While I can respect wanting a say wrt anything that happens to one's body, I think disease and its prevention in dense populations falls into a different category. I almost got hit by an old lady yesterday at that pesky 3-way stop. I waited for the car in front of her to turn left, then I started to make my own left, but after stopping she just ignored me and made her left out of cycle. She made a decision about her own driving that didn't take anyone else into account, and we both almost paid for it. I can't help but see immunization in the same light.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If someone shuld choose not to get vaccinated because they don't trust the fools who run the Government, what protection does everyone else have, when that unprotected person goes grocery shopping ?
Or to work ?
Or any other part of normal life ?

 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

And when those decisions also impact other's bodies? Should you be allowed to be around others

 

18 hours ago, zapatos said:

I have no problem with not granting people privileges to the unvaccinated (access to private property or employment for example) but taking their money or freedom of movement unless they give up body autonomy seems unwarranted. 

 

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

You misunderstand the meaning of body autonomy. It does not mean remaining healthy. It means being in charge of decisions regarding your own body.

You may think that giving up decisions regarding your body to the fools who often run government is a good idea; I do not.

I didn't misunderstand, just wanted to get across that the decisions about one's body include the decision to take care of one's health.  A decision which requires the cooperation of others when a highly contagious strain is at large and one doesn't have the option of being recluse.  

[zapatos]

42 minutes ago, TheVat said:

just wanted to get across that the decisions about one's body include the decision to take care of one's health. 

Or not. People make the decision every day to do things that are not good for their health.

43 minutes ago, TheVat said:

A decision which requires the cooperation of others when a highly contagious strain is at large and one doesn't have the option of being recluse.  

Are you again purposely misunderstanding to make a point? Body autonomy does NOT "require the cooperation of others".

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Or not. People make the decision every day to do things that are not good for their health.

Are you again purposely misunderstanding to make a point? Body autonomy does NOT "require the cooperation of others".

So that is an interesting argument. The aspect of body autonomy is, in many ways, complex. Fundamentally having control over your body is arguably a fundamental right and history has shown us terrible things when these rights were violated without consideration. Moreover, there are also aspects in which fierce arguments are made to limit those, such as in case of pregnancies. 

The situation specifically with vaccines is complicated as fundamentally we are balancing body autonomy with public health requirements. Ethics cuts both ways here. There are many thoughts around the issue ranging from how far we should be allowed to go to increase compliance. Reading through literature, it rather quickly is clear that there are no clear answers to the ethical question. 

One way to balance these issues is to find an equilibrium which balances of the right for autonomy with the severity of the public health measure. I think that for those living in a society there should be a tipping point where the common good takes precedence of the individual will. The tricky bit is mapping out where this point should be.

It is not a perfect framework, but would at least take the public threat level into consideration rather than being an absolute. The best way, of course would be to inform and educate, but I am pretty sure we are talking about the bits where this approach does not work.