If it is allowed to be given without consent to those under a certain threshold of being able to communicate whether they want it or not, who gets to decide that threshold? Would an autistic savant who is well-versed in mathematics or some other preferred activity, but requiring a speech-board to convey needs such as hunger, be forced to take the vaccine, even if it means losing the ability to do their preferred activity at the level they desire?
I feel like this is a troublesome proposition all too reminiscent of the conversation around CRISPR, genetic selection, and designer babies.
Troublesome propositions are at the heart of ethical debates! At least, when the proposition isn't 100% evil, there's room to have a conversation. Yes, like CRISPR, this is pretty much an argument involving an aspect of eugenics. Discussing where to draw the line, or if one should be drawn at all, is very interesting to me. Especially when it comes to personal choices in relation to eugenics. I don't support the idea of designer babies, or forced sterilization. But I have been considering getting a vasectomy so that I don't pass down my own genetic ailments. I do not enjoy living with these flaws, so I would not want to father children with these flaws. But I still
want children. If I could edit out my EDS and Glaucoma and Asthma from my sperm, I would. Otherwise, I'll settle for adopting.
I agree with Conan in that a guardian should only force their ward to take this "cure" (@Trymos: calling it a "vaccine" was mostly inflammatory on my part, to get more people to engage with the topic, vaccines cause autism ha-ha and all that) as an act of desperation. Ideally our society would be able to care for people no matter how crippled they are, but that is not the case. If someone with low-functioning autism is at risk of losing their support group, then their options are either the cure so that they could hopefully stand on their own, or be institutionalized or homeless. It's hardly a choice at that point.
But if they are allowed to act "in desperation," then what determines a desperate circumstance? A judge? Some arbitrary rules? If there are rules and guidelines about the acceptable criteria to force this cure onto someone, then people will lie and cheat to make it appear as if their ward fits when they don't. Caring for the mentally disabled costs a lot of mental willpower and money, a lot of people would rather be rid of the burden by any legal means.
This question is also kinda similar to one that people really deal with all the time - is it okay to put your ailing parents/grandparents into a nursing home instead of taking care of them yourself? There's a good chance they'll experience some kind of elder abuse, even if you spend a lot of money
This is a very good relation that I hadn't thought about. Thinking for myself, I really love my parents and would want to help them, but it's taken me a long time to truly get out into the world myself, and they had me when they were already old. I have an older brother and sister, but they've both moved out to take care of their own lives and do their own thing. I still live with my parents, but I yearn to leave the nest and do my own thing as well. I help them as much as I can while I live with them, but in only a few years they may truly need assisted living. Can I do that while I work? What if I have to travel? What if I run into long-term opportunities out of the country, and I can't take them with me?
If I agree to take care of my elderly parents, I would be putting all of my out-of-country (or even just out of state) ambitions and opportunities on hold. I have about 25 years or less of decent vision left, and probably fewer years of being out of a wheelchair due to my other disability (EDS). The years I spend taking care of them reduces the amount of the very limited time I can take to enjoy life on my own. If I refuse, then they would have to impose themselves on my brother, or my sister, and their already established families. Hell, they might live long enough to see me needing some assisted living, at which point I won't be able to take care of them regardless.
They gave up on opportunities and fun to take care of us. Does that make it unfair to them if we don't want the burden of taking care of them when they're old? But they chose to have us, having to take care of them is an obligation, not a choice. Does that make it unfair to us? Thinking about it makes me feel very self-centered and selfish. Like, OF COURSE I want to take care of them and keep them comfortable in their old age! I want to spend more time with them! But at the same time, I want to go out and live my life! I feel very conflicted about this.
Show Posts
