The New York Times ran an editorial over the weekend titled: Please Vaccinate Your Teenager to Protect My 4-Year-Old.
The author's daughter had/s cancer. (Is anyone ever really cancer free?) What kind of monster would not feel sympathy, and what kind of parent would not feel protective of Nusayba? Most of us naturally look out for other people's children. We send nut free lunches even if our kids can eat Jif. We look out for kids in stores if they seem lost. We share Amber alerts and feel deep sorrow when we learn of a child's death. Does that mean we should risk our own children on another child's behalf? And be shamed if we do not?
You and your kids could help protect my 4-year-old daughter’s life.
Nusayba was found to have a rare cancer at the age of 2. Since then, she has endured multiple rounds of chemotherapy and a liver transplant. Fortunately, she has been cancer-free for over a year now. Her cheeks have filled out, her bouncy, thick curls are growing back, and we can’t help indulging her love of cinnamon rolls and Dippin’ Dots.
The best news my family has heard since Nusayba was declared cancer-free is that the F.D.A. has authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for 12- to 15-year-olds.
The headline reminded me of a meme I had seen several years ago: "You are not required to set yourself on fire to keep someone else warm." In the language of Vaccinese, the new Esperanto, this means, you should not be required to endanger your own teen with an experimental vaccine to theoretically protect someone else's young child."
I commented on the NYT Facebook page.
Should we then demand a full paid vasectomy for all American boys once they reach puberty, to protect girls from pregnancy? We will give them a donut and a chance to win a tricked out Subaru. The boys can have a government funded reverse vasectomy when married and with enough provable income to support a family. This will protect society, protect girls and therefore is necessary. Of course not.
I got quite a few likes and two comments agreeing:
With today’s logic on the vaccine, this makes sense to me!
But many commenters failed to appreciate my analogy.
that is a ridiculous argument
not even the same
that is an asinine argument!
That really isn't relevant to the subject of vaccines. It would never happen because vasectomies are not designed to be reversible, though sometimes they can be. They are intended for men who are sure they don't want to father any more children.
By the way, the success rate for vasectomies as long as ten years ago is up to 95%. I imagine that today, doctors could create an experimental technique using the latest technology that would be even more successful. And if some boys are unable to father children in the future, that's terrible, but hey, "greater good," right. Think of the 4 year olds.....