On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:05:56 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Uhmm, you did get the sarcasm, did you?

It seems not - sorry, it's been a rough couple of days for me. :/

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 15:38:50 -0400, Warp wrote:

> And as said, the modern western zeitgeist is to submit to their beliefs
> and not force them.

Or to recognize that it's actually not very nice to tell people "we know 
better than you" and to force them to do something they don't want.

Yes, we do need to vaccinate people against these deadly diseases, but I 
don't think it's a case of "political correctness" gone wrong to 
recognize that nobody has the right to *force* someone to take an 
injection because *we say* it's good for them.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8-8-2013 18:56, Shay wrote:
> "andrel"  wrote in message news:520### [at] gmailcom...
>> So this is another way charity is harmful. (Shay, see how I also try
>> to neglect your point, by focussing on the metaphor?)
>
> Ha.
>
> Yet, I still give to charity, though I try to be very careful about it.

Please do, and indeed think about what you are doing and the implications.
In our federation we sort of tend to just 'supply' knowledge and 
knowledgeable people. Even if we have the money to buy things that 
someone in a developing country needs that is often not a good idea in 
the long run.
I am advocating very much that the people in developing countries start 
developing their own biomedical-equipment as soon as possible. My main 
points are that almost all current equipment is designed to be 
irrepairable, uses consumables, and need a lot of other equipment to 
run. Like an electronic database with patient records. (attached a 
picture I took 2 years ago in Tanzania of the database system there. The 
lady you see on the back was the director of EWH.org )
That simply means that most of what we use now cannot be used in a 
developing country context, not now, not in 10 years time. The equipment 
donation business is about to collapse.

> Bill Gates is going to eliminate Polio, and I can't help but think that
> will make the world a better place.

Bill and Melissa are doing great work, but they don't cover all the 
problems.
BTW for many things the right people are still the most important 
aspect. You, with your skills, could do a lot of positive things in e.g. 
subsahara africa, much more than the average CEO of a small NGO.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'medrec.jpg' (157 KB)

Preview of image 'medrec.jpg'

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Or to recognize that it's actually not very nice to tell people "we know 
> better than you" and to force them to do something they don't want.

We can approach the dilemma from a philosophical point of view, or we
can approach it from a pragmatic point of view.

Forcing them will save thousands and thousand of lives. Not only theirs,
but that of other people (because the more people have immunity, the
more protected those few are who do not.)

You can talk all you like about what their freedoms and rights are, but
we are also talking about saving people's lives. And as said, it's not
only *their* lives we are talking about. We cannot stop them from
committing suicide because of delusion, but we can stop them from
spreading the disease to others, many of whom do not hold the same
deluded beliefs and who would very much like to be spared from the
disease.

> Yes, we do need to vaccinate people against these deadly diseases, but I 
> don't think it's a case of "political correctness" gone wrong to 
> recognize that nobody has the right to *force* someone to take an 
> injection because *we say* it's good for them.

The thing is, we *know* it's good for them. With actual physical hard
evidence. And it's not like it's some kind of ideology or culture we
are trying to "spread" to them. It's a disease we are trying to cure
so that everybody will be a bit safer.

If you say "we shouldn't be forcing western values onto them", then I can
agree. If you say "we shouldn't be saving their and other people's lives
by force" then I have to disagree on principle.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:52041512@news.povray.org...

> Forcing them will save thousands and thousand of lives.

Totalitarianism has cost millions and millions of lives. We can't have the 
benefits of totalitarianism without the costs.

Post a reply to this message

On 9-8-2013 0:00, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Or to recognize that it's actually not very nice to tell people "we know
>> better than you" and to force them to do something they don't want.
>
> We can approach the dilemma from a philosophical point of view, or we
> can approach it from a pragmatic point of view.
>
> Forcing them will save thousands and thousand of lives. Not only theirs,
> but that of other people (because the more people have immunity, the
> more protected those few are who do not.)
>
> You can talk all you like about what their freedoms and rights are, but
> we are also talking about saving people's lives. And as said, it's not
> only *their* lives we are talking about. We cannot stop them from
> committing suicide because of delusion, but we can stop them from
> spreading the disease to others, many of whom do not hold the same
> deluded beliefs and who would very much like to be spared from the
> disease.

In the Netherlands we have a small outbreak of measles. There are 
vaccines but in some areas enough parents refuse to get their children 
vaccinated because of 1) conservative religious reasons (we should not 
interfere in God's plans) 2) some sort of feeling that modern technology 
is always harmful (e.g. followers of Anthroposofic principles are often 
mentioned).

If we are unable to get everybody vaccinated here, is there any reason 
why it should work in Afghanistan, other than 'we know better, so you 
have to do what we say'?

There are also other sorts of distrust against vaccinations. For 
instance do you remember the attacks in India on polio workers?



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 18:00:51 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Or to recognize that it's actually not very nice to tell people "we
>> know better than you" and to force them to do something they don't
>> want.
> 
> We can approach the dilemma from a philosophical point of view, or we
> can approach it from a pragmatic point of view.

There's nothing philosophical about it, Warp.  If you're forcing people 
to take an injection, you're in the wrong, just as much as someone who's 
forcefully injecting people for experimental purposes.

If you were on the receiving end of something you were told was a 
lifesaving injection from someone who you perceived as acting in an 
imperialist way, would you take it?  Or would you be suspicious and fight 
back?  I know what I'd do.

> Forcing them will save thousands and thousand of lives. Not only theirs,
> but that of other people (because the more people have immunity, the
> more protected those few are who do not.)

Yes, I understand herd immunity, and it is an important thing.  But 
people are not cattle, and you can't just march into a country and start 
pumping drugs into people's bloodstream because you think it's a good 
idea (or even because it /is/ a good idea).

>> Yes, we do need to vaccinate people against these deadly diseases, but
>> I don't think it's a case of "political correctness" gone wrong to
>> recognize that nobody has the right to *force* someone to take an
>> injection because *we say* it's good for them.
> 
> The thing is, we *know* it's good for them. With actual physical hard
> evidence. And it's not like it's some kind of ideology or culture we are
> trying to "spread" to them. It's a disease we are trying to cure so that
> everybody will be a bit safer.

They *don't* know it.  They need to be educated and make a free choice.

> If you say "we shouldn't be forcing western values onto them", then I
> can agree. If you say "we shouldn't be saving their and other people's
> lives by force" then I have to disagree on principle.

I wish you and your medical army well.  Don't be surprised if the 
"natives" start shooting back because you're treating them like children 
or cattle.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> And as said, the modern western zeitgeist is to submit to their beliefs
>> and not force them.
>
> Or to recognize that it's actually not very nice to tell people "we know
> better than you" and to force them to do something they don't want.
>
> Yes, we do need to vaccinate people against these deadly diseases, but I
> don't think it's a case of "political correctness" gone wrong to
> recognize that nobody has the right to *force* someone to take an
> injection because *we say* it's good for them.

On the other hand, nobody has the right to kill others by refusing a 
proven medical vaccination. But because you're only going to affect some 
statistic in a table of deaths in 10 years time, nobody cares.

The problem with this issue is that the person deciding whether to take 
the injection or not doesn't have to bear the full cost of their 
decision. For example by deciding not to have the injection that results 
in more people needing medical care or dying, plus the cost of 
continuing vaccinations for the rest of the world.

In order to make it fairer, the cost of treating and vaccinating the 
rest of the world should be divided up between the number of people who 
refuse the injection, and they are made to pay that. If they can't 
afford that, they are given the injection forcefully :-)

Post a reply to this message

Le 09/08/2013 11:31, scott a écrit :
> If they can't afford that, they are given the injection forcefully :-)

But that's oppression of the poors by the richs!

(assuming you divide the amount, the formula used will be subject to
endless discussion : per head, per income, per wealth, per age... )

-- 
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message

>> If they can't afford that, they are given the injection forcefully :-)
>
> But that's oppression of the poors by the richs!
>
> (assuming you divide the amount, the formula used will be subject to
> endless discussion : per head, per income, per wealth, per age... )

Age would be the major factor (as younger people generally have more 
years left to spread disease). Income and wealth are secondary factors 
(wealthier people tend to live longer), but the impact would be small 
compared to age, so for the sake of saving money on the admin and 
logistics, just do it by age. Or given that we can't expect children to 
make an informed decision (and they're the ones who can cause most 
damage by not having the injection) just force it on children and make 
everyone else pay the same (again, to make logistics easier).

Just in case you're wondering, this is not meant to be serious, just 
looking it at purely from a logic / economics point of view :-)

Post a reply to this message