What about the patients who didn't want to get the vaccine? Do they no longer have control of their OWN bodies? Do they no longer have a say in what goes into their OWN bodies? Is it really right to force someone to do something they don't want to?
When the prompt says, "...due to religious reasons," it is very vague and needs further explanations.
Many times, it is rather due to misconceptions, such as another village told a woman that she will get the worst fever or will be cursed by some devils if getting vaccinated, so she decided not to have it. It is the right thing to
convince or
encourage to do something that they
initially didn't want to, and the process it takes to get there should entail some respect, incentives, and understanding for those locals. OP already stated that many deliberations failed, so it would be interesting to see what exactly "many deliberations" mean, what went wrong and what could have been done differently. I think this is where medical professionals need to learn how to negotiate and persuade someone better. If you saw a lecture by Prof. Stuart Diamond at Wharton, you know what I mean there, and I think it's one of the most underrated field of study in general.
At the end of the day, it is ethically wrong to
force any civilian to get vaccinated, but for the maximum goods overall (utilitarianism) it was a right thing to do. Was it acceptable? I think I would rather ask that question to that last group of unvaccinated people as a post-treatment survey. Ideally, as they live longer and see that they are not seeing anyone around with smallpox, hopefully they will understand and accept eventually.
Heh pretty sure he was just using it as an example, but you could make that argument.
In any event, not being vaccinated constitutes a threat to others.
Not being vaccinated does not
directly cause threats (e.g., having an untreated, active tuberculosis to harm others directly might not be the same as not getting vaccinated), so even in the U.S., getting vaccinated in general is
recommended, rather than mandated.
Uhh yeah, it's absolutely the right thing to do in this case. If someone is mentally incompetent and behaving in a threatening way, a physician can forcibly medicate that person by law. Why? because they are a perceived threat to others. This isn't an argument about autonomy. If you want to make that argument, euthanasia is a much more compelling thing to talk about.
Rather than talking about euthanasia, one of more similar examples we can discuss would be child neglect; parents refuse to offer medications because they believe in the power of praying. If the illnesses or symptoms worsen enough, physicians can override parental beliefs. This example might be more relevant, because both cases (child neglect and OP's case) indicate that religious beliefs prevent standard or modern ways of medical treatments. However, even then, child neglect is a more extreme case, so I think our discussions have to revolve around the vaccination.
