Public health or personal choice?

Navigation

User login

Online users

Jeff Brigham
Laurian
ontheroad
agathafrye
JstPlnOnry
oldtimeydave
Sandy M
emmettoconnell
Kay
The Fire Inside

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

colormagician
wilybadger
Mariner719
stiks071
banyantreenich

Public health or personal choice?

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 11/13/2005 - 11:54am.

I find this puzzling. Wouldn't people want to be inoculated if there was a pandemic?

[via omjp]

Senator Patty Murray is supporting this bill. Could US Citizens be forced into inoculations if there is a pandemic? If you find this worrisome, please call your public officials and particularly, the list below.

Excerpt: Senator Richard Burr, of North Carolina has introduced a bill which, if passed, means the end of health freedom, possibly the end of your health and most certainly the end of your right to a trial by a jury of your peers in the all-too-likely event that you or your child have been harmed by a vaccine. The "Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005" also takes away your right to know what you have been injected with (no disclosure, no Freedom of Information Act suits, none!) and your right to be compensated if that vaccination harms you or a loved one.

Rick's blog
Login or register to post comments

This is an interesting topic,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 11/13/2005 - 1:07pm.

This is an interesting topic, I think a lot of the to do about it is unjustified. Gary Butcher, the vet quoted here is travelling the world telling leaders that the threat is being blown out of proportion. I found this here.

Q: Will avian flu become pandemic?

A: Nobody can answer that with certainty. For now, the avian flu virus is not capable of causing a pandemic. The human cases almost exclusively have affected people in close contact with the blood and feces of infected chickens. In at least one case, however, it appears that the virus might have been passed from one person to another.
For avian flu to become a wide-scale danger, it would have to mutate in a way that allows it to be passed easily between people. That would require some daunting genetic gymnastics.
"I'm not saying it definitely couldn't happen," said Gary Butcher, a University of Florida veterinarian and expert in poultry viruses who has traveled to Thailand and other countries to study the recent avian-flu outbreak. "But the chances of it happening are so infinitesimally small that it is not something I would worry about."

Some people do believe that a

Submitted by Sarah on Sun, 11/13/2005 - 1:43pm.

Some people do believe that all mainstream medicine is dangerous. Their children are not vaccinated. The right to refuse vaccinations is seen as a religious issue and/or medical, amongst other reasons. I was part of this mind set for awhile but am not anymore.

Quite a few books on this subject that list horror stories, detail reasons why not to be vaccinated, and offer supposed alternatives.

Also easy to tip over into conspiracy theories with all this.

There is collusion between th

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sun, 11/13/2005 - 4:08pm.

There is collusion between these senate sponsors and big pharma. Conspiracy amongst congress and industrial interests is the norm, not the exception.

The exception is when congress men and women (those who aren't beholden to their notion of advancing along and greasing the greed laced power chain) speak up against the onslought of the energy, pharmaceutical, and weapons (et al.) industries in defense of the peoples' rights and health.

Big pharma having Congress in

Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 11/14/2005 - 7:56pm.

Big pharma having Congress in their pockets is scary stuff. Profits should not come before people.

Sarah, Big Pharma is a bus

Submitted by Deep Diver on Tue, 11/15/2005 - 7:00pm.

Sarah,

Big Pharma is a business. They are in business to make money. They are not a public service entity, nor are they government. What you are talking about is Socialism, and certainly you don't want that?

For what its worth, most of the large companies provide medicine for the low income, elderly, and those that don't qualify for other aid.

By knowing where to look, fil

Submitted by Sarah on Tue, 11/15/2005 - 7:21pm.

By knowing where to look, filling out the right forms, having the needed persistence and dedication, in some cases people can get their meds through the large companies. Not everyone is able to do this or find advocates to help, nor find the meds they need.

Eventually doesn't someone, somewhere, need to think of the good of all? How can it be right to keep HIV/AIDS meds from people who cannot afford the high prices expected? When there is a choice between making profits and people dying, shouldn't we have our focus on people?

Sarah It's not that simple

Submitted by Deep Diver on Tue, 11/15/2005 - 7:47pm.

Sarah

It's not that simple.

If you choose to use HIV/AIDS as an example, you lose some ground with me. That predominantly is a disease of poor choices in this country.

But again, the business has made the choice to help, but not do it all. They are in the business to make a profit, and make enough to fund their research to make new drugs.

Since the pharmaceutical comp

Submitted by Sarah on Tue, 11/15/2005 - 9:24pm.

Since the pharmaceutical companies own the whole game, and lack of the right meds for some people can mean death, don't the companies have a responsibility beyond profit?

I would come down on the side

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 11/15/2005 - 10:49pm.

I would come down on the side that there is a moral responsibility but not a legal one, no.

So what do we do if an entire

Submitted by Sarah on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 7:13am.

So what do we do if an entire industry refuses to uphold what citizens see as its moral responsibility? What do we do if part of the industry acts responsibly, but not enough of the industry?

You would not give your busin

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 9:27am.

You would not give your business (re: money) to those in the industry who do not act responsibly and instead reward those companies who do act responsibly.

You'd be surprised at how many companies would get on-board once you have an impact on their bottom line.

In some cases I can see that

Submitted by Sarah on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 11:46am.

In some cases I can see that working.

I wonder though when it comes to pharmaceutical companies. If a life saving drug hasn't gone generic, and I really need it, what choice do I have?

What if I read that company X inflates their prices, treats their workers like shit, has shading doings with Congress, and seems to get away with anything it likes?

Boycott, like TFI suggested.

Submitted by Deep Diver on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 11:49am.

Boycott, like TFI suggested. Get politically active, write your Congressman/woman.

What if not taking the drugs

Submitted by Sarah on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 11:52am.

What if not taking the drugs mean I or my loved one dies?

I'm going to sound like the c

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 12:30pm.

I'm going to sound like the cold one but I'll say it: We're not entitled to medication. Is it a bad deal? Yes, very much so.

As Deep Diver mentioned, you can put public pressure on private companies. I can't reiterate enough that when the bottom line is impacted or when public opinion browbeats a company how quickly the policies of that company will change.

Remember, these companies have shareholders. When stocks start to dip they will demand, starting from the top, that the necessary changes are made to improve their holdings. As consumers, we have a lot more power than you might think.

I'm going to disagree with on

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 2:16pm.

I'm going to disagree with on this, I do believe that we should be entitled to medicine. I definetly support universal healthcare for all. I know that this goes against your belief that government should not carry this burden, so it means that the entire system would have to be overhauled. We need to start locally and work with doctors and hospitals to provide care to those that can't afford it. I think the government could simply offer subsidies to doctors who provide care to folks on the cheap or free.

Rob: "We need to start locall

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 2:45pm.

Rob: "We need to start locally and work with doctors and hospitals to provide care for those that can't afford it."

I agree with you on this. This would be private citizens/organizations putting pressure on other private citizens to use their expertise. Also, I can live with the government offering limited financial incentives for doctors to carry this out.

I have said before I'm not a complete "No government, all private"-person. Granted, there's a lot that I come down on the side of a limited government but I really do try to balance between what is practical and what is ideal.

For instance, college loans. I think these are great and should be continued, as they are for the ::gulp:: "common good" and help promote a more educated citizen base. The government should be more active, though, in going after those who default on these loans. I've heard far too many stories of people bilking the government (re: the taxpayer) out of student loan money.

This doesn't mean I think we're "entitled" to the government giving out these loans, I simply think they're a good idea.

I wonder, it might just be th

Submitted by Sarah on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 11:57am.

I wonder, it might just be that simple to me.

I've been thinking on your comment concerning my use of HIV/AIDS as an example and on the cause of the disease. I disagree with what you see as the predominate cause and I think we can do a whole thread on that, easily.

As for losing some ground with you because of my example choice, I'm don't really understand, but it's okay.

Sarah My comment about you

Submitted by Deep Diver on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 5:41pm.

Sarah

My comment about you losing some ground in your argument is choosing to use the HIV/AIDS issue. Much like TFI, I believe there are consequences for our behavior. You make good choices you get rewards. You make bad ones, you don't. Government shouldn't be bailing you out of your bad choices with my tax dollars.

In this country HIV/AIDS is primarily a disease of bad choices. Unprotected sex, numerous partners, homosexual sex, drug abuse. Yes there are those who contract it outside the above, but they are a very small percentage. I don't want to pay for that!

Is it really that clear cut?

Submitted by Sarah on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 6:18pm.

Is it really that clear cut?

What of a woman who loves her husband, who believed with all her heart that she made the right choice, yet he will not use condoms? And now he sleeps around? They have children, they have a life together, she has always done the best she could, and now she is HIV positive?

So many stories like this. Is human behavior and social relations such an either-or proposition? And is there no possible compassion for people who do the best they can but their best isn't good enough in the face of larger challenges?

I realize this is not what yo

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 6:24pm.

I realize this is not what you intended and there is very little in language, especially when one is using an example, that irks me, but I just want to say a female is just as likely to sleep around.

Ok, I'll step away from the microphone now.

I agree with TFI. And what

Submitted by Deep Diver on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 5:44am.

I agree with TFI. And what is the limit for the big companies, how much is enough? Locally, should the China Clipper feed 20 homeless every day? All the local businesses should too? Then should every home in Oly take care of one homeless person, one day a week, we have enough people to do that? How much is enough? I will tell you, churches need to do more in their local area helping the non-career homeless.

Isn't that rather a slippery

Submitted by Sarah on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 7:19am.

Isn't that rather a slippery slope ? If we say that the pharmaceutical industry has some responsibility, why.....then.......even small businesses will be forced to feed homeless people!

I agree and don't view it as

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 9:24am.

I agree and don't view it as a Slippery Slope. If Big Business has a moral responsibility the same is applicable to Small Business.

I think if anyone has a business (or even the financial means) they should help who they can to the extent that they can. With that said, they should do so on their own accord and not because an entity (in this case, government) is forcing them to.

If Big Business has a legal responsibility then the same should apply to Small Business, too.

What do we do if businesses,

Submitted by Sarah on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 11:39am.

What do we do if businesses, especially ones who pretty much own the market of stuff vital for life, what do we do if they won't be responsible?

See my above comment. Also,

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 12:34pm.

See my above comment. Also, unless a company can figure out a way to corner the market on oxygen, there isn't a market that a single company can monopolize to the point where we're at the mercy.

Does this require the public to be proactive? You bet. We can't just mill around and say, "Man, I wish this would change" or another excuse for allowing the status quo to continue. Once again, we're back to personal responsibility. It's the responsibility of the individual to take the initiative to make changes rather than rely on government to do it for us.

Why only big business has res

Submitted by Deep Diver on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 9:15am.

Why only big business has responsibility? Small business local responsibility, big business regional or national responsibility?

Amen TFI, I have compassio

Submitted by Deep Diver on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 6:44pm.

Amen TFI,

I have compassion, empathy, etc. But I'm not paying for bad behavior if I have a choice.

If it really comes down to $$

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 9:26pm.

If it really comes down to $$, then why doesn't it mean anything to you that it is actually less expensive to treat everyone with aids alike rather than make moralistic judgments about who deserves to be treated and who doesn't. The same argument holds for drug abuse, and lots of other issues.

I think maybe he was saying h

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 11/16/2005 - 9:36pm.

I think maybe he was saying he doesn't want to pay for the bad choice, not so much because of cost but because of principle.

For instance, are you going to put more weight into helping a person who was involuntarily subjected to second-hand smoke or someone who has made the decision to smoke for the last 25 years, long after we have known it's an unhealthy decision?

Exactly! Rick, this was

Submitted by Deep Diver on Thu, 11/17/2005 - 6:23am.

Exactly!

Rick, this was your argument in an earlier thread on the new law to stop smoking in public places.

Big Pharma needs Big Regulati

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 11/21/2005 - 12:03pm.

Big Pharma needs Big Regulation. The pharmaceutical industry is truly an 800 pound gorilla (right up there with energy, weapons/"defense," etc.) The industry responds not to the ethical imperatives of medicine, but to the bottom line - how much money they are pocketing for share-holders.

The problem with allowing money to be master, is that human interests are all too easily brushed aside. Money is very useful stuff, but it should never be an end in and of itself - whether for individuals, societies or corporations.

When money becomes the ultimate goal, it is all too easy for common decency and respect to be pushed down the totem pole. We see it every day when an $80,000 luxury car drives by homeless people on the street. We see it in a pentagon budget that is $450 Billion a year! - and we can't provide housing or a system of work for homeless people?

The pharmaceutical industry is the same - in the pursuit of its false master - financial profit, it has lost meaning and a basis in humanity.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: