"but they can take away school assistance/ child care for unvaccinated children?". ........ the Gov recognises no ethical standards and will do whatever they want. This isnt true because you would see a lot more law suits the government are accountable to the people that put them there.....
"Hows it moral and ethical for example that if I was say 80 years old and vaccinated and needed assistance for COVID and died waiting because some 20 year old was using a ventilator that I needed, purely because they were unvaccinated? "Medical ethics doesn't take into account whether one is vaccinated. that's the purpose of public health. Well perhaps they should, someone that is vaccinated is actually making a conscious decision and that decision is now supported by the scientifically proven fact that they will be reducing strain on hospitals via not likely to be requiring as much medical assistance due to reduced hospitalization and death.
its ethical to encourage all the population to be protected against the infection. the debate we're having here isn't about ethics but about a different issue of personal freedoms. this is more a moral issue than ethical and morality has no shades of grey and yet is different on an individual level. this is why I abhor morality. If this issue is a moral issue rather than an ethical one, I recommend reading the definition of "moral". Define "moral"concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour. Considering that ALL morality is determined by social and political norms then one would deem what the majority of society deem as the correct behaviour as the moral good behaviour correct? As such as the majority of people are getting vaccinated as we are seeing with vaccination rates, this would be a morally accepted good idea. This would therefore conclude that it would be a morally bad decision not to get vaccinated.
An if you change this to an argument on morality of personal freedoms, then again its back to basics with what is freedom and hows it determined etc... Anyone with common sense realises a lot of lockdowns breach the constitution. Outside of a global pandemic anyone implementing lockdowns would be sued to hell and back. This issue can then branch off into - If people "riot" for freedoms resulting in an extended lockdown, they inadvertently impact on my returning freedoms that no longer are rolled out.
You then would ask yourself, if you are conducting yourself within the rules of law are you ever actually free. This itself throughs out any discussions relating to freedom.
the ethics of leaving a 20 yr old on ventilation while an 80 yr old waits for the ventilator to become available doesn't judge the 20 yr old because there are many on ventilation, not just the 20 yr old. the balance of the argument comes from the utilitarian pov that the younger person has more to contribute to the common weal than the 80 yr old who has (a greater probability of) a much shorter time remaining to contribute to society. Utilitarian argument is neither a moral nor a ethical one and stands on its own premise of - usefulness.
I think any rational person would actually question the persons own moral and ethical compass should they not have any form of guilt over their action (or rather inaction) in this circumstance. Because of their direct inaction the older person has missed out on the ventilator and died. Regardless of arguments outside of this ie that their simply should have been more ventilators or staff assistance.
much more t6o it but this isn';t the place for a full blown ethical argument to be developed.
