Risking Personal Freedom
As I mentioned last week, we continue to receive e-mails and postings on the forum in response to the e-Alert I sent you about the debate over smallpox vaccine (“A shot in the arm; a shot in the dark” 6/10/02). A reader named MBJ wrote with a point of view shared by several others:
“It seems that the good of the many may jeopardize a FEW but, isn’t that what it is all about? We have to think about what will help the Most people. As a nurse I think, generally, that we have to protect the masses. Yes, some will perish. I’m just not convinced that we should spread panic when it seems that vaccination may save thousands of lives if available.”
I agree, MBJ, that we should not spread panic. But we do need to carefully look at all sides of this matter, even if it means we have to look at some frightening things. If someone were giving us overwhelming evidence that we were on the verge of an outbreak of smallpox, measures to protect millions at the peril of a few would be in our combined best interest. But right now the threat of smallpox being introduced into the population is only a possibility. And forcing vaccinations, or any medical decisions, to deal with a possibility could very well hurt more people than it would protect.
But the larger question here is: how much personal freedom and how many civil liberties should we risk to protect ourselves against something that might happen? I don’t believe there are any easy answers, but I’m certain that we can expect the debate to intensify in the upcoming months.
To Your Good Health,
Jenny Thompson
Health Sciences Institute
Copyright 1997-2002 by Institute of Health Sciences, L.L.C.
