Thinking of Others

Two years before the Vaccine.

 In a 1955 interview, Dr Jonas Salk was asked who owned the patent for his polio vaccine.  It was the same day his polio vaccine was officially declared safe and effective.   He replied, "Well, the people, I would say.  There is no patent.  Could you patent the sun?"  Six pharmaceutical companies began producing his IPV, (Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine) but Salk did not profit.  His goal was the elimination of polio, and that required availability universally at low cost or no cost.  

The example he set for the world must be remembered by all of us, that when we make a decision about our own health, we are impacting others.   You might ask, what business is it of theirs?  This blog shares answers to that question. 

Our American approach to freedom of choice for ourselves is something we value.  Yet, decisions about how we feel and act about our own health with regard to contagious diseases can never honestly be no one else's business.  Remember back to school, lining up in a row to pass by for shots?  I still have a faint reminder on my shoulder from one of those shots.  

In an interview of Robert H. Hopkins, Jr, medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases he said, "One of the most important steps families can take before the new school year is making sure children--and the entire family--are up to date on back-to-school vaccines.  Vaccines help protect students from illness that spread easily in the classroom."

Times have changed since I was in school!  As Americans, we have always valued our rights, but it seems that more recently we guard our rights with greater indifference to the impact on others.  Of course, there are people with medical reasons that prohibit fascinations.  They must rely on community immunity to protect them from the spread of disease.  However, if too many choose not to be vaccinated, the community immunity weakens or fails. 

You might be surprised to learn that Public Health Priorities were first argued in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1905.  The Court ruled the defendant's argument that he had the right to care for his own body did not supersede the protection of public health.  People of faith sometimes objected to health requirements, and in some states, accommodations have resulted in significant numbers of sick unvaccinated school children.  The beliefs of those parents are real, but their decisions can have a greater impact than just on their own children.

Several years ago, a British physician named Andrew Wakefield suggested that single vaccinations were better than combining them.  His insistence brought him nothing but trouble.  

The combined vaccinations have been common in America.  While single vaccinations may be somewhat better, the combined vaccinations also have their advantages.  It reduces the number sticks during a single visit to the doctor.  It reduces the number of health care appointments needed to keep children fully protected.  Also, in families where both are working, one trip to the clinic is appreciated.  

Another important consideration is that the saying "one and done" applies.  Three appointments in a busy family are less likely to be accomplished in a timely way, if at all, than one vaccination.   

                           Happy back to school and be careful to watch for the street crossings!

 

 

 Several years ago, my husband and I attended a party.  The hosts collect art, primarily paintings, but we noticed a small figure of a woman.  Because a three-dimensional form was unusual in their collections, we inquired about it.  We learned that it was a model of a friend.  That was my introduction to the capability of producing three-dimensional forms. Today, there are many uses for 3-D modeling.

Recently, however, what just appeared in the news was a use that went beyond other common uses.  The capability of creating fake nude images without the consent of the person whose head is being used to create the fake full body nudity was the issue.  

The immorality of such use seems obvious to me.  However, Elon Musk was taken to court to determine his right to do just that.  The claim of Musk that he had the right to use the woman's head without her permission for his false depiction on the grounds of Freedom of Speech was denied by the Court.    

I could not help but remember that not long ago, Elon Musk was given access to all sorts of private information. As technology makes available so many things that not long ago we could never imagine, we must face those unimagined things.  We have rushed past so many things that can be done without slowing down to consider what should or should not be done.   

Musk's inappropriateness seems obvious.  The First Amendment guaranties all Americans the right of privacy.  The Minnesota judge may have been the first to ban what Musk did, reinforcing the severity of Musk's abuse with a fine of $500,000 per violation.  I am sure that the richest man in the world can afford to pay the fine.  However, he may also have enough money to challenge the ruling.

Other cases involving free speech verses the right of privacy may be on their way.  The clashes of those two rights are not uncommon.  In general, free speech will take priority over privacy claims, particularly when thoughtful information is shared in public view or the issue of political interest is involved.  However, using an image of a person's head fixed to the body of another person went too far.  If this case goes to higher courts, I hope privacy prevails.  As unbelievable things now are becoming possible, our responsibilities as humans become more important and more challenging.