For more discussion and your own suggestions you can post in https://lemmy.world/c/policy
Text post rather than image of text https://lemmy.world/post/13834866
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
General Discussion
12881 readers
39 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy.World General!
This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.
🪆 About Lemmy World
🧭 Finding Communities
Feel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!
Also keep an eye on:
For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!
💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:
- [email protected] - Note this is for more serious discussions.
- [email protected] - The opposite of the above, for more laidback chat!
- [email protected] - Into video games? Here's a place to discuss them!
- [email protected] - Watched a movie and wanna talk to others about it? Here's a place to do so!
- [email protected] - Want to talk politics apart from political news? Here's a community for that!
Rules and Policies
Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.
0. See: Rules for Users.
- No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
- Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
- Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to [email protected] or [email protected] communities.
- No Ads/Spamming.
- No NSFW content.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I feel like that could backfire. The antivax movement would use it to try and kill off all compulsory vaccinations leading to a resurgence in otherwise rare diseases. ERs would hesitate to perform lifesaving operations without consent over fear of being sued later.
Then there is the question of who makes bodily autonomy decisions for children and people unable to make decisions for themselves. If parents, you could see an increase in religiously motivated mutilations. If the state…
People already do medically unnecessary genital mutiliaton to babies (circumcision). Parents have autonomy over their children until they reach the age of reason, or they become legally adults. I think pregnancy would have to create legal adulthood.
ER and Good Samaritan laws already indicate that when unresponsive, consent to save a life is implied. You can do CPR on an unresponsive person without repercussions.
For the vaccines, people should definitely be free not to do it, but then they are not admitted to public school. They are quarantined when they go to a hospital. They cant travel on airplanes or public transit. Just like you’re free to get face tattoos but some people might not want to look at you. Should we outlaw face tattoos? No, that should be unconstitutional. I don’t have a face tattoo and I don’t think anybody should, but I would fight for their freedom to make their own choice. It doesn’t have to be a good decision, it just has to be their own decision.
Of course there are details to hash out and decide in the courts, but that is the case with all good rights, even freedom of speech.
You are more optimistic than I am. I worry a particularly “slanted” Supreme Court might interpret school vaccine requirements, quarantine, etc. as coercive violations of bodily autonomy.
Maybe if the amendment had a limited public heath exception and some protections for doctors. But the wording would be tricky.
After what China allegedly did during Covid, I think we should think very carefully about the specific conditions of a legalized and forced quarantine.
Yeah, that’s why any exception would have to be narrow and carefully worded and I’m not even sure it would be possible.
Both risks are pretty bad. Make the protections too strong and people will abuse the privilege. Too weak and governments will abuse the exceptions.
Eh, maybe I’m overthinking it. Even the first amendment is understood not to protect certain kinds of speech. Although sometimes I wonder if those exceptions could survive if directly challenged in our modern situation…
A few years ago I would have said the courts would impose sanity over these extremes but that no longer applies.