1 November 2005
At your cervix
Lindsay Beyerstein extends a metaphor:
I don't think the religious fundamentalists who oppose the cervical cancer vaccine are going far enough. I think we should be consistent and oppose all medical care that might encourage irresponsible behavior.
Let's start with tetanus shots. Vaccinating people against tetanus implicitly condones carelessness with rusty nails.
I'm not sure where cholera fits into this pattern, but frankly, if I get to the point where I need to be encouraged to behave irresponsibly, I'm probably not going to have any fun at all.
More to the point, if you followed this opposition to its logical conclusion, it would perforce be a Bad Thing were someone to discover, for instance, a 99-percent foolproof cure for genital herpes; the evil miracle drug would have to be suppressed, lest people actually start inserting Tab A into Slot B as though they ever stopped in the first place. (Persons oriented toward different methods should substitute as appropriate.) I am persuaded that this approach is seriously wrongheaded, though I reserve the right to change my mind should I be stuck in line at the Sav-on and discover packets of Aunt Meg's Vacu-Lyptus Mentholated Abortion Drops sitting there next to the Pamprin.Posted at 3:33 PM to Political Science Fiction
TrackBack: 11:37 PM, 1 November 2005
» The pro-cancer straw man from Sean Gleeson
What do you think of this logic? Premise: Heart transplants are good. Conclusion: Therefore, a law mandating that everyone must get a heart transplant is also good. It doesn’t quite follow, does it? I mean, just because you agree that some med......[read more]