(May 11, 2021 at 1:13 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(May 11, 2021 at 12:41 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: What is it about the Government of a country seeking to ensure that its citizens are "protected' against something which has a high chance of killing them that is having you look askance at the topic?
I would respond that the word protect here veils a deeper and more complex reality than the mention of the word allows. There is enough ambiguity about what protective measures are effective, and enough risks involved in participating, that to not respect others who do not wish to participate is unjustified. And even if such measures are indeed effective and risk free, one of the first things I was taught as an EMT was that consent is valuable in the medical field. I cannot force medical services on people without their consent, even if I know that failing to do so may result in death or injury. That is not my decision to override. The most I can do is make sure they are fully informed about the consequences.
"Ambiguity"?
What 'Ambiguity'?
This is a new and unencountered virus, is it not?
Some one comming into contact with said virus unvaccinated has zero inbuilt immunities to said virus, correct?
They are litteraly at the mercy of chance. That their systems can detect and cope with said virus right off the bat, with no sort of previous warning encounter such as people have had with the various strains of avian infuenza, correct?
As for 'Consent.
If a shark takes a leg off then medical proceedures are most certainly forces up a person's body.
So 'Consent' seems only to go as far as "Helping people not die.".
