Often times, It becomes uncomfortable when one individual makes his desire and wishes mandatory for others to follow. On the one hand, everybody desires to get to make their own decisions, especially, their body, their health, their beliefs. Nobody likes being forced to do something that they have not agreed to. But not every decision is personal. Some decisions spread. Literally. At this point, this preventive care debate becomes a tricky one. This is what I have thought in many ways and to be honest I do not think that there is a simple easy-going answer. Give an example of vaccinations. When an individual decides to not preventatively attend to himself or herself then it becomes another thing.
Nonetheless, once the choice that is made by an individual subjects offers higher levels of risk, especially children, the elderly, or people with low immunity, it is no longer a question of choice. Being free is good, but being responsible is best, as well. Sometimes I understand the reason some people are not willing to receive preventive care. In most cases it is based on personal beliefs. Sometimes it’s fear. At times it is mistrust of systems or experience. We cannot overlook these issues and say that they are not that big. People do not just wake up and suddenly decided to refuse something without any reasons. And that is why I think it is worth mentioning that aspect of the discussion too. But consequences are something we cannot overlook. As far as not taking preventive care merely affected the person making the choice, then it would be easier to say, leave people to make their own choice. It is not the case however. Diseases spread. Outbreaks happen.
And when this is the case not that necessarily those who are the first to make the choice are the ones who are the most affected. Its is more delicate when it comes to children. Parents are in charge of the children, but should there be limits to that authority where the ruling can be detrimental to the child, and others? At that point, the line starts to become blurred. At a personal level, I do not think that a harsh approach of coercing individuals is the most effective. The resistance is normally forcibly made. When people have a sense that something is being imposed on them without their knowledge and without their consultation they will revolt even further. But neither do I think that absolute liberty, without any sort of rule, is effective. viewing it realistically I think the right thing is between. Strong education. Clear information. Open conversations. And then, some non-negotiable rules in case it is clear that the lives of the people are in danger. Everything is not to be imposed, neither is everything to be left quite open.
And the end of the day we should really ask: To what extent do we separate rights of individuals and safety of the community? Because both matter. But when one starts putting a lot of other people at risk, it is harder to argue that it is a decision that is supposedly personal. In my own opinion: Freedom is important. Nonetheless, the decisions that can harm others should have some boundaries.
