What Is Your Obligation To The Larger Good
But you can get them a blanket
The New York Times published an editorial over the weekend entitled, Please Vaccine Your Teen To Protect My Four Year Old.
The author’s daughter had cancer. (Is anyone ever really cancer free?) What kind of monster wouldn’t feel compassionate and what kind of parents wouldn’t Nusayba protect? Most of us, of course, take care of other people’s children. We send nut-free lunches even if our children can eat jif. We keep an eye out for children in stores when they look lost. We share amber warnings and feel deeply saddened when we learn of a child’s death. Does that mean we should risk our own children for another child? And are you ashamed if we don’t?
You and your children could help save my 4 year old daughter’s life.
Nusayba was diagnosed with a rare cancer at the age of 2. Since then, she has endured several rounds of chemotherapy and a liver transplant. Fortunately, she has been cancer free for over a year. Her cheeks have filled up, her plump, thick curls are growing back and we can’t help but indulge her fondness for cinnamon rolls and dippin ‘dots.
The best news my family has heard since Nusayba was declared cancer-free is that the FDA approved the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine for 12-15 year olds.
The headline reminded me of a meme I’d seen a few years ago: “You don’t have to light yourself to keep someone else warm.” In the language of the vaccine, the new Esperanto, it means that you shouldn’t be obliged to put your own teenager at risk with an experimental vaccine to theoretically protect someone else’s toddler. “
I commented on the NYT facebook page.
Should we then require a fully paid vasectomy for all American boys after puberty to protect girls from pregnancy? We’re giving them a donut and a chance to win a tricked Subaru. The boys can have a government-funded reverse vasectomy if they are married and have enough verifiable income to support a family. This protects society, protects girls and is therefore necessary. Of course not.
I got some likes and two approving comments:
With the logic of the vaccine today, that makes sense to me!
But many commentators did not appreciate my analogy.
that is a ridiculous argument
not even the same
that’s a silly argument!
This is really not relevant to the subject of vaccines. It would never happen because vasectomies are irreversible, although sometimes they can be. They are intended for men who are sure that they no longer want to father children.
Incidentally, the success rate for vasectomies was up to 95% ten years ago. I imagine that doctors today could develop an experimental technique using the latest technology that would be even more successful. And if some boys can’t father children in the future, that’s terrible, but hey, “higher good”, right. Think of the 4 year olds …..