A Vaccination Dilemma

[loveofourlord]

Lies eh, before you accuse me, better check those 4 fingers pointing back atcha. 99.87% dead rofl. So only 0.13% of americans are still alive?! And the rest dying of dyslexia lol.

*laughs* yeah I got that backwards, heh :> I meant the US is already at a 99.87 survival rate, and that's only assuming everyone in the states was infected by now.

Oh and you people point weird When I point, 3 point at the person next to me, and the fourth points at the ground.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

A Vaccination Dilemma

Alex lives in the Federated Commonwealth of Cornucopia – a western style democracy.

Alex works for People Incorporated, a company whose employees work in close physical proximity to their customers. Think jobs like nurse, teacher, or carer for the aged or people with a disability.

Like most countries, Cornucopia has been plagued by Coronavirus but a vaccine is now available. People Inc has decided that, for the protection of its customers, its staff and the company itself, it must be able to guarantee that all staff are vaccinated. As a result, the Company decides to make vaccination a mandatory condition of employment.

Alex belongs to a religion which cannot morally accept vaccination, based on a link between the vaccine and cell material taken from aborted foetuses. Alex, politely refuses the vaccination on religious grounds. Since People Inc is not able to redeploy Alex to a non-contact role, it decides that, if Alex won’t accept vaccination, it has no choice other than to terminate employment. Alex points out that their actions violate the concept of religious freedom.

In an attempt to resolve the dilemma, both parties agree to submit the problem to an Ethics Committee for a decision based, not on law or constitutionality, but on ethical considerations.


You are a member of that Committee. What do you decide and why?

OB

Since there is an admission that they have no idea if the vaccine protects the recipient from getting this (though he may or may not have a milder case) or from passing it to others, it's ridiculous to demand it, especially since we have zero knowledge of future complications.

Just take a look at all the lawsuits settled for other drugs, where the company sells a few billion dollars of product, then the drug's side effects or outcomes can no longer be hidden or overlooked, so the company pays a fine of a million or so, and on to the next moneymaker.

Call me skeptical, but I've looked at these cases for far too long.

Here's just ONE for Vioxx:
Pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. said on Friday it will pay $4.85 billion to end thousands of state and federal lawsuits over its painkiller Vioxx in one of the largest drug settlements ever.

"Company officials estimated the deal, if accepted, would end 45,000 to 50,000 personal injury lawsuits involving United States Vioxx users who suffered a heart attack or ischemic stroke, the type in which blood flow to the brain is blocked.

Merck pulled Vioxx from the market September 30, 2004 after its researchers determined the blockbuster arthritis treatment, then pulling in about $2.5 billion a year, doubled risk of heart attacks and strokes.
Pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. said on Friday it will pay $4.85 billion to end thousands of state and federal lawsuits over its painkiller Vioxx in one of the largest drug settlements ever.

Company officials estimated the deal, if accepted, would end 45,000 to 50,000 personal injury lawsuits involving United States Vioxx users who suffered a heart attack or ischemic stroke, the type in which blood flow to the brain is blocked.

Merck pulled Vioxx from the market September 30, 2004 after its researchers determined the blockbuster arthritis treatment, then pulling in about $2.5 billion a year, doubled risk of heart attacks and strokes.


Since the 80s, Pharmaceutical companies have managed to create a sweet little deal for themselves ensuring ZERO liability for bad vaccines, after threatening to pull out of that market altogether due to lawsuits. In Wyeth (2011), the Supreme Court affirmed that The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 shields vaccine makers from virtually all liability.

Merck knew Vioxx was dangerous years earlier, but continued to rake in millions selling this drug as long as it could get away with it.

For this reason, bodily autonomy must rule and no vaccine (or medication) should ever be mandated. The risk must be voluntarily undertaken, never coerced, after being fully apprised of all potential side effects.

We don't even know what the side effects and outcomes are yet, with this new vaccine, which was not tested for many years, as all previous ones were. We will not know for many years.