by exploited » Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:44 am
It is easy to talk about the inviolability of informed consent when you aren't staring the results in the face. If it should be illegal to refuse to get medical treatment for your kids, thus harming your own child, why should it be legal to refuse medical treatment that harms not only your own child, but potentially many others as well?
The picture served a very valuable purpose. I don't give a f**k if it upsets you. It should be more upsetting to watch grown adults attack the work of great men, work that has allowed us to greatly reduce or eliminate some of the deadliest diseases on the planet.
Measles killed 630,000 in 1990, and 158,000 in 2011. Reduction attributed to global vaccination efforts. Nearly absent from North America due to herd immunity.
Polio incidence decreased from 350,000 in 1988 to 223 in 2012. Why? Vaccinations.
151,000 cases of mumps in the US in 1968… to an average of 265 cases since 2011.
Vaccinations have reduced Hep B in the US by 82% since 1990… but there are still 2000-4000 deaths caused by liver damage per year. It kills 620,000 people worldwide every year.
Knowing all this, what kind of f**k up person would claim that not vaccinating your kids is merely a "personal choice?" That they should be allowed to put not only their own child at risk, but other peoples children, because of their religious beliefs or because they think Jenny McCarthy is cool? And why, oh why, is it wrong for the government to intervene here, but not if people decide to let these same diseases go untreated?
- These users thanked the author exploited for the post:
- The Comrade