Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
vaccinations/health care and product promotions.
Replies
-
If someone opposes getting the vaccine for some reason of principle or personal conviction (of whatever sort), but is willing to give up that principle/conviction when offered entry into a big (low odds of winning) drawing for $1M, a free donut, a free beer, or all of those plus whatever other silly gimcracks and geegaws are being offered . . . IMO their character and integrity didn't amount to much in the first place . . . or the strength of their belief was pretty wishy-washy. As a citizen, I don't have any ethical qualms about manipulating those people into increasing the common good.
Public policy can be difficult when public good meets sincere, firm individual ethical or other-basis belief that drives in an opposite direction. This scenario, IMO, doesn't even come close to that.
(I've heard some proposals about larger payments to incent people, with a value high enough to perhaps incent someone to break with their personal beliefs in order to feed their children, or some other true dilemma for someone in poverty but with strong vax objections. Entry into a $1M drawing isn't that, unless the person is pretty bad at math.
In general, I, too, have ethical doubts about governments running the regular type of lotteries (in which low income folks are enticed to waste their meager money, basically), and have long figured that lotteries of that sort are just a tax on people who are bad at math, whatever their income sufficiency.)6 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Not using any easy, safe, and effective means of preventing a deadly and highly contagious virus is much more ethically fraught than encouraging people to.
Laws mandating seat belts in cars and helmets on bike riders, those are actually coercive in the sense that not following those laws can get law enforcement involved in your life. Pretty much nobody disagrees with that.
I guess there is an argument to be made either way. I wonder if someone can really give completely voluntary informed consent when there is a monetary incentive involved. And I imagine that would have more of an effect on disenfranchised and marginalized people. One could argue that the end justifies the means when touching on that kind of gray area.
I personally don't think that seat belt and helmet laws are in the same category as (hypothetical) vaccination requirement laws - in that they don't infringe on one's bodily autonomy in the same way as an actual physical injection into one's person does.
We're going to have to agree that a law saying you don't have a choice you must do this infringes more on your autonomy than having a choice and possibly being rewarded for making it wisely. Because that's the definition of that infringe, choice, and autonomy.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
Not directed at me, but I think this will differ between countries/cultures, just like strategies to 'entice' people to get vaccinated.
In Belgium, it's actually illegal to get paid/compensated for donating blood (or sperm or organs,...).
No private companies here are doing anything like Krispy Kreme, not that I know of anyway. I'm not sure it would be well received by the general public, it would be seen as trying to earn money from a crisis.
A (publicly funded) lottery for vaccinated people, that I'm sure of will never happen here. Vaccination willingness is quite high here. But for those who are more reticent or perhaps not well informed (foreigners not speaking any of our languages) there will be information campaigns of all sorts, etc.
No vaccine passports either so far, more likely that any limits on activities will be linked to vaccination status or being tested negative. So no 'pressure' there either.
I actually think that in the very unlikely event of not reaching herd immunity, it's more likely that being vaccinated will be made mandatory for everyone (except when medically not possible). But the situation would need to be really bad for that, a last resort.
I think there are cultural differences at play on top of personal differences, based on reading this thread.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
Not directed at me, but I think this will differ between countries/cultures, just like strategies to 'entice' people to get vaccinated.
In Belgium, it's actually illegal to get paid/compensated for donating blood (or sperm or organs,...).
No private companies here are doing anything like Krispy Kreme, not that I know of anyway. I'm not sure it would be well received by the general public, it would be seen as trying to earn money from a crisis.
A (publicly funded) lottery for vaccinated people, that I'm sure of will never happen here. Vaccination willingness is quite high here. But for those who are more reticent or perhaps not well informed (foreigners not speaking any of our languages) there will be information campaigns of all sorts, etc.
No vaccine passports either so far, more likely that any limits on activities will be linked to vaccination status or being tested negative. So no 'pressure' there either.
I actually think that in the very unlikely event of not reaching herd immunity, it's more likely that being vaccinated will be made mandatory for everyone (except when medically not possible). But the situation would need to be really bad for that, a last resort.
I think there are cultural differences at play on top of personal differences, based on reading this thread.
OK, so only directing this at you as you identified being from Belgium, and I don't know the answer to this question: What's the Belgian public's attitude towards children being vaccinated for Measles, Mumps, and/or Polio? Because it's pretty much required here in the US, outside of complicating medical issues or the occasional anti-vaxer.
Just wondering why a requirement for a Covid vaccine would be any different than the other required vaccines?1 -
YellowD0gs wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
Not directed at me, but I think this will differ between countries/cultures, just like strategies to 'entice' people to get vaccinated.
In Belgium, it's actually illegal to get paid/compensated for donating blood (or sperm or organs,...).
No private companies here are doing anything like Krispy Kreme, not that I know of anyway. I'm not sure it would be well received by the general public, it would be seen as trying to earn money from a crisis.
A (publicly funded) lottery for vaccinated people, that I'm sure of will never happen here. Vaccination willingness is quite high here. But for those who are more reticent or perhaps not well informed (foreigners not speaking any of our languages) there will be information campaigns of all sorts, etc.
No vaccine passports either so far, more likely that any limits on activities will be linked to vaccination status or being tested negative. So no 'pressure' there either.
I actually think that in the very unlikely event of not reaching herd immunity, it's more likely that being vaccinated will be made mandatory for everyone (except when medically not possible). But the situation would need to be really bad for that, a last resort.
I think there are cultural differences at play on top of personal differences, based on reading this thread.
OK, so only directing this at you as you identified being from Belgium, and I don't know the answer to this question: What's the Belgian public's attitude towards children being vaccinated for Measles, Mumps, and/or Polio? Because it's pretty much required here in the US, outside of complicating medical issues or the occasional anti-vaxer.
Just wondering why a requirement for a Covid vaccine would be any different than the other required vaccines?
Polio is the only legally required vaccine here. A whole bunch of others are highly recommended, but not mandatory. In the southern part of the country, some vaccines are required to be 'allowed' into officially certified daycare centers.
Vaccination rates are high here (although a bit lower in the the southern part of the country, influenced by antivax tendencies in France) so I would presume that's why so few vaccines are mandatory.
So same reasoning for Covid-19, I guess: no need to make it mandatory unless herd immunity is not reached. We're still in the middle of our Covid vaccination campaign (all adults who are willing should be vaccinated by mid July) so it's not yet clear what vaccination rate we'll reach and if extra measures will need to be taken.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
I don't see someone concluding "This may benefit me" as erasing the voluntary part.
By this logic, any sort of incentive is messing with free will.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
No.
And they can't here.
Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit
0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
Not directed at me, but I think this will differ between countries/cultures, just like strategies to 'entice' people to get vaccinated.
In Belgium, it's actually illegal to get paid/compensated for donating blood (or sperm or organs,...).
No private companies here are doing anything like Krispy Kreme, not that I know of anyway. I'm not sure it would be well received by the general public, it would be seen as trying to earn money from a crisis.
A (publicly funded) lottery for vaccinated people, that I'm sure of will never happen here. Vaccination willingness is quite high here. But for those who are more reticent or perhaps not well informed (foreigners not speaking any of our languages) there will be information campaigns of all sorts, etc.
No vaccine passports either so far, more likely that any limits on activities will be linked to vaccination status or being tested negative. So no 'pressure' there either.
I actually think that in the very unlikely event of not reaching herd immunity, it's more likely that being vaccinated will be made mandatory for everyone (except when medically not possible). But the situation would need to be really bad for that, a last resort.
I think there are cultural differences at play on top of personal differences, based on reading this thread.
It does seem a cultural differences, with, as far as s I can see, US posters defending KK and similar schemes and not seeing how others could disagree with them
Agreed. Sums up what I said in OP about it wouldn't be well received in Australia either.
Although I can't see it being made mandatory in Australia except for relevant occupations and possibly nursing home visitors ( as is flu vaccine already)
And international travel.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
I agree coercion was not right word.
I would word it manipulation - and I agree it is unethical to use financial incentives to manipulate people to make health decisions - whether we agree with that health decision or not.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
I don't see someone concluding "This may benefit me" as erasing the voluntary part.
By this logic, any sort of incentive is messing with free will.
Yes it is.
Informed consent should be made without irrelevant incentives.
0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
No. I think it is illegal to sell/pay for blood, organs, sperm, embryos in Canada.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Not using any easy, safe, and effective means of preventing a deadly and highly contagious virus is much more ethically fraught than encouraging people to.
Laws mandating seat belts in cars and helmets on bike riders, those are actually coercive in the sense that not following those laws can get law enforcement involved in your life. Pretty much nobody disagrees with that.
I guess there is an argument to be made either way. I wonder if someone can really give completely voluntary informed consent when there is a monetary incentive involved. And I imagine that would have more of an effect on disenfranchised and marginalized people. One could argue that the end justifies the means when touching on that kind of gray area.
I personally don't think that seat belt and helmet laws are in the same category as (hypothetical) vaccination requirement laws - in that they don't infringe on one's bodily autonomy in the same way as an actual physical injection into one's person does.
We're going to have to agree that a law saying you don't have a choice you must do this infringes more on your autonomy than having a choice and possibly being rewarded for making it wisely. Because that's the definition of that infringe, choice, and autonomy.
I was referring strictly to bodily autonomy, which helmet and seat belt laws don't compromise or infringe upon.
It seems like you are saying that if I agree with certain societal restrictions (helmet and seat belt laws) then I have no basis to have ethical qualms about totally unrelated issues surrounding bodily autonomy and voluntary informed consent? I honestly don't know what to say because I can't wrap my head around how those two thing are even connected. It is occurring to me as a straw man argument but maybe I am just not understanding the connection or something.
At any rate I am pro-vax and hopefully everyone in Ohio gets their vaccine and whoever wins the millions of dollars is perfectly happy with the way things are run in their state.
1 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Interesting.
As you can predict, I dont feel that is appropriate.
Nor has any such thing taken place here in Australia.
I think that the US is the only large country where, in most areas, we have more vaccines than we have people who want them. That is the reason for government-sponsored promotions like the one in Ohio.
Do you think when Australia reaches that point, the government might start some sort of campaign to convince people who are hesitant to get their jab? Maybe not to the point of lotteries, but more of a PR campaign? It's not needed now, but might be when supply surpasses demand.
Maybe they'll impose a fine, like they do if you don't vote.2 -
YellowD0gs wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
Not directed at me, but I think this will differ between countries/cultures, just like strategies to 'entice' people to get vaccinated.
In Belgium, it's actually illegal to get paid/compensated for donating blood (or sperm or organs,...).
No private companies here are doing anything like Krispy Kreme, not that I know of anyway. I'm not sure it would be well received by the general public, it would be seen as trying to earn money from a crisis.
A (publicly funded) lottery for vaccinated people, that I'm sure of will never happen here. Vaccination willingness is quite high here. But for those who are more reticent or perhaps not well informed (foreigners not speaking any of our languages) there will be information campaigns of all sorts, etc.
No vaccine passports either so far, more likely that any limits on activities will be linked to vaccination status or being tested negative. So no 'pressure' there either.
I actually think that in the very unlikely event of not reaching herd immunity, it's more likely that being vaccinated will be made mandatory for everyone (except when medically not possible). But the situation would need to be really bad for that, a last resort.
I think there are cultural differences at play on top of personal differences, based on reading this thread.
OK, so only directing this at you as you identified being from Belgium, and I don't know the answer to this question: What's the Belgian public's attitude towards children being vaccinated for Measles, Mumps, and/or Polio? Because it's pretty much required here in the US, outside of complicating medical issues or the occasional anti-vaxer.
Just wondering why a requirement for a Covid vaccine would be any different than the other required vaccines?
What does "pretty much required" mean?
There are no required vaccines in Canada, I would be surprised if they were in the US. Schools require proof of certain immunizations in order to attend, but that is not the same as mandating the vaccine itself. Maybe that is what you meant?0 -
My ethical concern about the Ohio lottery plan is that it's wasting a lot of money to provide windfalls to a tiny number of people for doing something that benefits themselves in the hopes of essentially bribing a larger chunk of people who are otherwise unwilling to do something for the good of their communities and the good of humanity.
I think there are a lot of more ethical ways to spend that money on getting the vaccines into the arms of economically and socially disadvantaged people who want vaccines but don't have transportation to get to a vaccine center or anyone to watch their children while they go or the ability to take time off from work to get it (either because they can't afford the lost wages or because they risk being fired if they don't work the hours they're told to work).
Use the money to bring the vaccines to those people, a la library bookmobiles or at-work blood drives or whatever other brilliant ideas you could get by spending 1% of the weekly lottery give-away with some smart people at community service organizations or think-tank consultancies.
But I don't have a problem with the lottery concept absent the waste of money. I don't see a difference between that and charity events at churches where they "bribe" you to make a donation with the lure of door prizes and raffle prizes and bingo prizes.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
No.
And they can't here.
Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit
I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
No.
And they can't here.
Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit
I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.NorthCascades wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
No.
And they can't here.
Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit
I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.
Not the person you quoted, but maybe the difference in perspective is because of the different health care delivery models in various countries. Not sure about Australia but our health care here is non profit - so a hospital wouldn't benefit from a transplant or any other service they deliver. Any talk about privatizing any part of the health care system is met with a lot of resistance because culturally we are brought up with the premise that health care is a right that everyone can equally access and no one profits from, which I think that is quite different from the US. This would probably influence our perception of the ethics of these types of scenarios.2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Interesting.
As you can predict, I dont feel that is appropriate.
Nor has any such thing taken place here in Australia.
I think that the US is the only large country where, in most areas, we have more vaccines than we have people who want them. That is the reason for government-sponsored promotions like the one in Ohio.
Do you think when Australia reaches that point, the government might start some sort of campaign to convince people who are hesitant to get their jab? Maybe not to the point of lotteries, but more of a PR campaign? It's not needed now, but might be when supply surpasses demand.
Maybe they'll impose a fine, like they do if you don't vote.
Extremely unlikely.
There may be requirements for relevant occupations and for nursing home visits like there are now for flu vaccines and probably for international travel - there are precedents already for those things with other vaccines.
Absolutely no precedent for fining people who choose not to vaccinate and chance of that happening is Nil.
0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
No.
And they can't here.
Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit
I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.
Correct, I do.
Hospitals here do not profit from transplants - these would all be done in major hospitals which are public organisations, not private profit making businesses.
Also in real life, the only kidney transplants from living donors are family doing it for benefit of relatives.
0 -
YellowD0gs wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
Not directed at me, but I think this will differ between countries/cultures, just like strategies to 'entice' people to get vaccinated.
In Belgium, it's actually illegal to get paid/compensated for donating blood (or sperm or organs,...).
No private companies here are doing anything like Krispy Kreme, not that I know of anyway. I'm not sure it would be well received by the general public, it would be seen as trying to earn money from a crisis.
A (publicly funded) lottery for vaccinated people, that I'm sure of will never happen here. Vaccination willingness is quite high here. But for those who are more reticent or perhaps not well informed (foreigners not speaking any of our languages) there will be information campaigns of all sorts, etc.
No vaccine passports either so far, more likely that any limits on activities will be linked to vaccination status or being tested negative. So no 'pressure' there either.
I actually think that in the very unlikely event of not reaching herd immunity, it's more likely that being vaccinated will be made mandatory for everyone (except when medically not possible). But the situation would need to be really bad for that, a last resort.
I think there are cultural differences at play on top of personal differences, based on reading this thread.
OK, so only directing this at you as you identified being from Belgium, and I don't know the answer to this question: What's the Belgian public's attitude towards children being vaccinated for Measles, Mumps, and/or Polio? Because it's pretty much required here in the US, outside of complicating medical issues or the occasional anti-vaxer.
Just wondering why a requirement for a Covid vaccine would be any different than the other required vaccines?
What does "pretty much required" mean?
There are no required vaccines in Canada, I would be surprised if they were in the US. Schools require proof of certain immunizations in order to attend, but that is not the same as mandating the vaccine itself. Maybe that is what you meant?
That's likely what he meant, and some employers can mandate them too.
I would see both of those things as far more coercive than anything we've been discussing re the covid vaccine (I think the covid vaccine may ultimately get put in the same category, though). And I have no problem with it, I don't think it is unethical. As Ann noted, if you really have strong principled opposition, you will make the hard choices. The fact that things like the "free beer" promotions seem to be working supports my view that many of those not getting the vaccine aren't really scared or morally opposed, they just are dug in on a partisan or cultural idea that covid is no biggie, the vax is for scaredy cats or snowflakes, or even just why bother, what a waste of time. If being able to laugh and say they did it for the free beer (or a lottery entry), then great.
Personally, I'm just delighted that we are vaccinated to the extent that things are really starting to return to normal and this won't be another awful summer and we will be able to travel, at least around the country, and the economy can return to normal. Thanks to the vaccines for that, and anything that encourages more and more people to get it, yay! And that includes positive feelings about KK for being a good public citizen and trying to encourage others to get it, even if I still will not buy their donuts. I hope it did get them some extra sales.4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
No.
And they can't here.
Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit
I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.
I don't see allowing people to buy organs as at all analogous to the vaccine stuff we've been discussing, to be honest, and I do think this would pose ethical concerns such that buying and selling organs is not permitted. (I note that you did not reference selling organs, but that's what compensating the donor at least seems to suggest.)
The hospital performing it or the doctors seems to me totally normal. Hospitals and doctors get to charge for their work, at least in the US where some are for profit. But non-profit hospitals also charge for the services they perform, of course, and pay their doctors, it's just ultimately the money stays in the hospital after expenses. I'm not sure how anyone could find this unethical.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
No.
And they can't here.
Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit
I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.
Correct, I do.
Hospitals here do not profit from transplants - these would all be done in major hospitals which are public organisations, not private profit making businesses.
Also in real life, the only kidney transplants from living donors are family doing it for benefit of relatives.
In "real life" in the U.S. people donate kidneys to friends and even to strangers, although that is usually part of a "chain" donation in which someone who is not compatible with a friend or family member gives to a stranger in the same position, and through some variable number of similar linked donations ends up benefiting the incompatible friends or family members of all the donors in the chain.
Does that equate to being "paid" for organ donation? Does that make it a bad thing, even though it is saving lives?
Also, there certainly are cases in the U.S. of individuals donating kidneys to strangers without any such benefit to someone they know. Weird that that happens in the U.S. with all of its ethically questionable provisioning of Krispy Kremes.
4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
No.
And they can't here.
Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit
I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.
I don't see allowing people to buy organs as at all analogous to the vaccine stuff we've been discussing, to be honest, and I do think this would pose ethical concerns such that buying and selling organs is not permitted. (I note that you did not reference selling organs, but that's what compensating the donor at least seems to suggest.)
The hospital performing it or the doctors seems to me totally normal. Hospitals and doctors get to charge for their work, at least in the US where some are for profit. But non-profit hospitals also charge for the services they perform, of course, and pay their doctors, it's just ultimately the money stays in the hospital after expenses. I'm not sure how anyone could find this unethical.
If the donors were compensated, at least they'd have the money on hand when the hospitals and doctors send them bills for their organ removal surgeries, which is a thing that has happened though it shouldn't, or if the donor has post-surgical complications, the costs of which the recipient's insurance won't pay.
4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
No.
And they can't here.
Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit
I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.
I don't see allowing people to buy organs as at all analogous to the vaccine stuff we've been discussing, to be honest, and I do think this would pose ethical concerns such that buying and selling organs is not permitted. (I note that you did not reference selling organs, but that's what compensating the donor at least seems to suggest.)
The hospital performing it or the doctors seems to me totally normal. Hospitals and doctors get to charge for their work, at least in the US where some are for profit. But non-profit hospitals also charge for the services they perform, of course, and pay their doctors, it's just ultimately the money stays in the hospital after expenses. I'm not sure how anyone could find this unethical.
If the donors were compensated, at least they'd have the money on hand when the hospitals and doctors send them bills for their organ removal surgeries, which is a thing that has happened though it shouldn't, or if the donor has post-surgical complications, the costs of which the recipient's insurance won't pay.
Yeah, agree -- I of course don't see them being compensated for the medical procedure "buying a kidney." Similarly, you can't buy a baby, but you can pay for the medical care of a surrogate or adoptive birth mom who decides to give her kid up (and she can change her mind).2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
No.
And they can't here.
Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit
I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.
Correct, I do.
Hospitals here do not profit from transplants - these would all be done in major hospitals which are public organisations, not private profit making businesses.
Also in real life, the only kidney transplants from living donors are family doing it for benefit of relatives.
In "real life" in the U.S. people donate kidneys to friends and even to strangers, although that is usually part of a "chain" donation in which someone who is not compatible with a friend or family member gives to a stranger in the same position, and through some variable number of similar linked donations ends up benefiting the incompatible friends or family members of all the donors in the chain.
Does that equate to being "paid" for organ donation? Does that make it a bad thing, even though it is saving lives?
Also, there certainly are cases in the U.S. of individuals donating kidneys to strangers without any such benefit to someone they know. Weird that that happens in the U.S. with all of its ethically questionable provisioning of Krispy Kremes.
Yes of course my real life referred to real life in Australia since that is what I was asked about.
Strangers donating to unknown random recipients isn't a thing here ( talking about living donors)
Last sentence sounds very defensive - no, it isn't weird that different cultures have different ideas of acceptable ethics on different things.
1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
No.
And they can't here.
Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit
I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.
I don't see allowing people to buy organs as at all analogous to the vaccine stuff we've been discussing, to be honest, and I do think this would pose ethical concerns such that buying and selling organs is not permitted. (I note that you did not reference selling organs, but that's what compensating the donor at least seems to suggest.)
The hospital performing it or the doctors seems to me totally normal. Hospitals and doctors get to charge for their work, at least in the US where some are for profit. But non-profit hospitals also charge for the services they perform, of course, and pay their doctors, it's just ultimately the money stays in the hospital after expenses. I'm not sure how anyone could find this unethical.
If the donors were compensated, at least they'd have the money on hand when the hospitals and doctors send them bills for their organ removal surgeries, which is a thing that has happened though it shouldn't, or if the donor has post-surgical complications, the costs of which the recipient's insurance won't pay.
That's a US thing though.
.
In other countries with universal health care all that is a moot point
I expect stranger donors here , of , say, bone marrow from the bone marrow registry, might be compensated for things like lost work time, travel expenses and the like.
But actual health costs are not an issue.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
No.
And they can't here.
Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit
I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.
Correct, I do.
Hospitals here do not profit from transplants - these would all be done in major hospitals which are public organisations, not private profit making businesses.
Also in real life, the only kidney transplants from living donors are family doing it for benefit of relatives.
In "real life" in the U.S. people donate kidneys to friends and even to strangers, although that is usually part of a "chain" donation in which someone who is not compatible with a friend or family member gives to a stranger in the same position, and through some variable number of similar linked donations ends up benefiting the incompatible friends or family members of all the donors in the chain.
Does that equate to being "paid" for organ donation? Does that make it a bad thing, even though it is saving lives?
Also, there certainly are cases in the U.S. of individuals donating kidneys to strangers without any such benefit to someone they know. Weird that that happens in the U.S. with all of its ethically questionable provisioning of Krispy Kremes.
Yes of course my real life referred to real life in Australia since that is what I was asked about.
Strangers donating to unknown random recipients isn't a thing here ( talking about living donors)
Last sentence sounds very defensive - no, it isn't weird that different cultures have different ideas of acceptable ethics on different things.
When the common practices of a particular culture are repeatedly criticized as unethical, and someone from that culture points out that those "unethical" practices of rewarding or incentivizing good behavior haven't led to the moral hazard of disincentivizing disinterested acts of kindness in that same culture (even at some personal risk), accusing someone of being defensive sounds a lot like gas lighting.
6 -
I eat plant based mostly whole foods. I stopped by KK on my way home from my last shot.
It was yummy and I would go back once in a while if I wanted something sweet to waste 200 calories.
I think it's brilliant marketing. I love it.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
No.
And they can't here.
Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit
I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.
Correct, I do.
Hospitals here do not profit from transplants - these would all be done in major hospitals which are public organisations, not private profit making businesses.
Also in real life, the only kidney transplants from living donors are family doing it for benefit of relatives.
In "real life" in the U.S. people donate kidneys to friends and even to strangers, although that is usually part of a "chain" donation in which someone who is not compatible with a friend or family member gives to a stranger in the same position, and through some variable number of similar linked donations ends up benefiting the incompatible friends or family members of all the donors in the chain.
Does that equate to being "paid" for organ donation? Does that make it a bad thing, even though it is saving lives?
Also, there certainly are cases in the U.S. of individuals donating kidneys to strangers without any such benefit to someone they know. Weird that that happens in the U.S. with all of its ethically questionable provisioning of Krispy Kremes.
Yes of course my real life referred to real life in Australia since that is what I was asked about.
Strangers donating to unknown random recipients isn't a thing here ( talking about living donors)
Last sentence sounds very defensive - no, it isn't weird that different cultures have different ideas of acceptable ethics on different things.
When the common practices of a particular culture are repeatedly criticized as unethical, and someone from that culture points out that those "unethical" practices of rewarding or incentivizing good behavior haven't led to the moral hazard of disincentivizing disinterested acts of kindness in that same culture (even at some personal risk), accusing someone of being defensive sounds a lot like gas lighting.
I said your last sentence sounded defensive - and I stand by that, it did.
Thread was intended as a discussion of opinions and of course those will be culturally influenced - it isn't weird that different cultures have different ideas of acceptable ethics on different things.
And kidney donating and getting vaccinated really are quite different things.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions