Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Dear Carly, Dear Scott?
About an hour ago, I received a personal e-mail from Carly Fiorina, brightly addressed to “Claire,” and sent to an e-mail address I don’t usually share, seeing as I try to keep at least one of them spam-free:
I wrote back:
Carly,
While I welcome your entry into the GOP contest and am looking forward to hearing more from you, I’d like to hear more about your thoughts on national security before committing to your campaign. Since you’re the only candidate who has thus far found this e-mail address and contacted me, I suspect you’d have an interesting perspective, in particular, on cyber-security.
Perhaps I could interview you and chat with you about this. I’m an editor of Ricochet.com, the most cordial website for cordial conservative conversation on the Internet. Our members would be delighted to have you join us and discuss your campaign. We’d be pleased, in fact, to offer you an introductory month of free membership.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Claire Berlinski
Senior Fellow for Turkey, American Foreign Policy Institute,
Author of There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters,
Ricochet.com
PS: Generally, I would address you as Ms. Fiorina. I’m old-fashioned. But since we’re already on a first name basis, I’ll follow your lead.
I thought no more of it, until the next one showed up, ten minutes later:
It came to the same e-mail address. That’s strange, I thought. We’re on a first name basis? I can’t call him “Scott,” can I? That would just be inappropriate. After fretting a bit about it, I wrote back.
Dear Governor Walker,
While I welcome your entry into the GOP contest and am looking forward to hearing more from you, I’d like to hear more about your thoughts on foreign policy and national security before committing to your campaign.
Perhaps I could chat with you about this. I’m an editor of Ricochet.com, the most cordial website for cordial conservative conversation on the Internet. Our members would be delighted to have you join us and discuss this issue. We’d be pleased, in fact, to offer you an introductory month of free membership.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Claire Berlinski
Senior Fellow for Turkey, American Foreign Policy Institute,
Author of There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters,
Ricochet.com
Then I realized I’d forgotten to give them the coupon code for their free first month. It’s JOIN. I don’t want to bother them; I’m sure they’re busy, so I’ll just add this here, in case they stop by.
If you haven’t joined yet, of course, now’s your chance: same deal I offered Carly and … Scott.
Anyway, I hope they’ll join us. Please extend a warm Ricochet welcome to them both in case they do.
Published in Elections, General
I mostly agree, but feel a great anger rising in me against the political talk.
You’re saying, to my mind, it’s parents’ choice only if they make the right choice, because if parents start choosing insanity in large numbers, then the police power of the state has got to force them into accepting public safety, however it’s legislated, or the consequences could be terrible. Are we agreed on this? So a state issue means states have the legal & reasonable authority to force people right? Even the feds, in an emergency? So property rights over kids can be suspended for the public good!
Another very real case from my childhood: one of my classmates died of appendicitis because his parents were Jehovah’s Witnesses and believed taking him to the doctor contradicted their religious beliefs. The whole thing was mysterious to me at the time. I was only eight, and my parents were so horrified by it that they didn’t want me to know what had happened to him, so I only found out indirectly. As I understand it, this is not compatible with Jehovah’s Witness teachings — which permit most medical treatments — but his parents did not believe this.
Clearly, if any other adult had understood this child was dying, they would have been morally obliged to intervene; and I don’t think anyone here would argue that this is not a legitimate responsibility of the state, would they?
edited
Sure, all these distinctions need to be made. But then let’s start from the basic political question: Is there a bottom line state power to enforce public health? Are there any real public health concerns to do with disease & vaccination? Does the authorized power of the executive, state or federal, have the legal authority to force parents & kids into vaccination pursuant to legislation? Is there a public or common good here that can constitutionally be pursued?
Miss Berlinski, I don’t know anymore… I hope the basic question about public health is something that brings us together rather than causes a quarrel, but I don’t know. It really is a matter of who has ultimate rights over the children under the various legal authorities up to constitutions.
& are American parents legally prosecuted if their kids die because of the parents’ religious opinions or some kind of negligence to their health?
I would wager they are both scam sites.
No, you do not understand me. I did not say it would be right for the state to do so. It would be a very difficult situation that I haven’t truly thought through — seeing it’s not happening in my state and I have no responsibility for it — and I’m not going to spout on the internet about how it should be handled.
But, knowing human nature, I am making a very safe prediction that the power of the state will be used to force vaccination in such circumstances, right or wrong. If a tiny minority of people hold that opinion, they’ll be left in peace. If they begin to be perceived as a threat to others, they won’t be. It’s just reality.
I don’t know what the laws are in different states, and there have been many, many lawsuits and legal challenges over this issue, but yes.
One of my granddaughters at age 9 had chicken-pox prior to the vaccine for it, and was very ill. It was in her throat, ears, and other private parts. Her sisters had it at the same time, also very sick but not quite as extensively. Kaylett was exposed to it at age 22, no idea from where, but was on vacation with her husband at the time. She spent 2 days in the hospital in SLC. Has since had shingles several times. Chicken-pox and measles can be deadly for children and adults.
Apology accepted
Thats not a hypothetical in America, It’s Amish Country
Amish
And while we haven’t had too many deaths recently, we had to deal with a measles outbreak.
Ohio Amish Begin Vaccinations Amid Largest Measles Outbreak in US.
For this conservative ( who is a parent and a physician).
“Vaccinations are a problem that should be dealt with on state level. I would suggest all parents consider vaccinating their children to protect them from serious infectious disease. For those who are opposed for religious or reasons of conscience, I would support your right to not immunize your children. However with rights come responsibility. Others have a right not to be exposed to potential illness, and therefore your children can be excluded from public school, camps,hospital visitation etc. For those whose children are not allowed into public school, I would encourage state voucher systems to attend such schools as would accept them, since their parents are tax paying citizens of our states.” Or words to that effect.
Remember something. Vaccines are wonderful medications. But they are not without risk. And while the risk is small, the benefits of wide scale immunization are a public good, but injury to any child is 100% borne by that child and family. I am reluctant force the State between a parent and what they feel is best for their child.
That’s the sort of stuff I’m worried about & one of the few cases where I think state authority should be quick to act & unhesitating. I don’t know where the Ricochetti, lawyers, doctors, & citizens all stand on this. I tell myself, stands to reason–public health is the big modern invention! But ask around & you might learn, the state power to protect public health is not universally conceded..
As for what that case revealed–that the statutes should be so unclear is indefensible in itself. If it’s because nobody does insane things, so nobody thought to make clear just how harsh & unbending the law should be–if it’s some happy ignorance, very paradise-like, that might be a defense. But that’s not the reason, is it?
This might be one more case where freedom & reason are in opposition…
As a physician, if a parent is refusing medical care for a child I believe has a treatable life threatening illness, I have an obligation to get the State involved.
A case from my own past. A child of parents of Jehovah’s Witnesses was involved in a serious car accident. The child needed emergent surgery, and a probable blood transfusion. Parents consented to surgery but not the transfusion. We had to get a Judge on the line and an immediate court order to proceed. The parents did not protest any further, and the kid did fine.
I’m not quite sure what you mean here?
I can’t say it’s universal, but private schools do typically require immunization as well.
That’s one thing I had in mind. Indian reservations are the other. Those places are not-quite-America, though, & have little contact with most Americans.
I, for one, do not believe parents have any such right against the public. The state has a duty, & therefore, a power to enforce public health. You’re the doctor, so you tell me about herd immunization–when it’s effective & when ineffective. I think, for serious diseases, as public health authorities define them, the reasonable position is, use public monies & force everyone needed to effect herd immunization to get the vaccine, if vaccination is considered by public health authorities safe.
The thing about vaccinations is that it’s a sliding scale.
If one parent decides not to vaccinate their child, they’re not really doing much to put their child at risk. It would be an abuse of power for the state to get involved.
If 10,000 parents in an area decide that, then collectively they are — and putting others at risk too. At this point, the state has an interest.
But the state should use every other tool to persuade and educate, not jump automatically to sticking a needle into a child against the will of the parents. That’s where school enrollment requirements and so forth come in. It provides a way out for parents for whom this is absolutely a hill to die on, a matter of deep conviction or fear, but it’s not an easy way. So the parents who just got scared by an article on Facebook are going to rethink, and they’re going to vaccinate. It’s easily possible that will keep the numbers down to a non-threatening level.
The situation is different in different parts of the country — which is why it should be a state issue, and no presidential candidate really needs to be talking much about it.
Prior to the vaccine, we pretty much all had it as kids, and the wisdom among parents (which made sense) was “expose your kids early, because the later they get it, the worse it is.” I had it relatively late, and had a bad enough case to have the typical scars on my forehead. I guess young people don’t get those anymore.
If there were enough kids ( like in say Marin County and other heavily Crunchy Antivax areas) unvaccinated, the market could provide private schools for unvaccinated kids.
This is a legitimate application of the RFRA test. The state has, perhaps, a legitimate compelling interest to ensure mass vaccination — though not necessarily universal. But it also has a duty to see that interest carried out by the least restrictive means possible. We can’t just jump to forcing people.
Well, we will just disagree. I’m not that big a fan of the Omniscient State.
Oh and this…
”
The 1976 swine flu outbreak, also known as the swine flu fiasco,[1] or the swine flu debacle, was a strain of H1N1 influenza virus that appeared in 1976. Infections were only detected from January 19 to February 9, and were not found outside Fort Dix.[2] The outbreak is most remembered for the mass immunization that it prompted in the United States. The strain itself killed one person and hospitalized 13.[2] However, side-effects from the vaccine are thought to have caused five hundred cases of Guillain–Barré syndrome and 25 deaths.[3]‘
Again: This is the thing that makes me laugh so hard I forget to write clearly: You jump from vaccination against serious infections diseases to the omniscient state. You do not say you yourself are an agent of that omniscient state in cases like bringing a judge into a hospital matter because of some unreasonable parent. Or do you say you are such an agent, but it’s ok because you’re not a fan?
When you’re talking about the state using public monies to force everyone to do something because of what public health authorities know, you’re talking about a very powerful state with a lot of presumed knowledge.
(This thread has now gone as far off topic as I’ve ever seen at Ricochet.)
It’s been pointed out to me I’ve completely derailed the discussion. Let me apologize & cease & desist…
Do you not grasp the difference between a life or death emergency, and the possibility of a potential infection which might cause serious harm or death at some unknown future date? By and large I’m a Doctor, not peoples mother. For adults I give advice, not orders. I think people have a right to behave in a stupid manner if they so choose, as long as they do not harm someone else directly through their actions.
It’s been pointed out to me I’ve completely derailed the discussion. Let me apologize & cease & desist…
I suggest you compose your thoughts on this position, title it appropriately and post it on the member feed. Good luck…
(Deleted… irrelevant)
I know a person who came down with Guillain-Barre after immunization.
Getting chicken pox as an adult can cause sterility, I gave it to my dad when I was 6 or 7. He would have been 30 or 31; I wonder if that’s why my folks stopped at 4 kids?
I believe the answer to that question is yes.
some are reluctant to participate, for that very reason of distrust of the public health authorities.
People should be able to opt out, but they must expect to be excluded, ostracized and quarantined by those who do not want to participate in their choice. That is the cost of that decision.
It is definitely not a federal issue, most aptly left to states.