In her post The AAP vs. Eli Stone (January 2008), Ginger Taylor at Adventures in Autism tells the AAP that her son is not "an acceptable loss in the war against TREATABLE viruses" (emphasis hers). The steel trap that is my mind (ha!) remembered that Ginger had brought this up before when talking about vaccines. In Where I stand on vaccines (June 2005), Ginger wrote:
The CDC’s vaccine policy is based on the principle that the good done for the many outweighs the harm to the few. And that is fine if you are making vaccine policy for 300 million people. But I am not responsible for holding back another Rubella epidemic; I am responsible for two little boys who just may fall into that sliver of the population that the CDC considers an acceptable loss. (my emphasis)An anonymous commenter responds:
YOU are not responsible, but you do share that responsibility with all of us parents. If enough parents assumed your attitude, pertussis, mennigitis, and perhaps even measles would make a deadly comeback. I'm not saying you must vaccinate, the risks/benefits must be evaluated carefully. But if you choose not to, please acknowledge dropping your share of responsibility for the good of all children for what it is - selfish. Please note that I do not consider selfish anything more than a decision taking only you or your children into account. It does not mean you are an all-bad person.I've thought about this very thing quite often when looking at the vaccine question. Does any single parent have any responsibility to "hold back another Rubella epidemic?" I've come to the conclusion that no, they don't. Though the commenter takes great pains to say being selfish doesn't make Ginger a bad person, the fact that he had say that at all points to the general feeling that being selfish is bad.
But, and this is a big but, everything that everyone does is for selfish reasons. I've written about this before in the context of behavior in the world of business, but the general principal is the same. Every action that we take, or influence, or try to make happen, we do because we want a benefit for ourselves or someone we care about. The Founding Fathers of the US knew this fact, and they also realized that this is the only way it can be if the fundamental freedoms they believed in were to be realized. (This is also why you can't, and shouldn't, try to get rid of Congressional 'ear-marks' .)
The obvious pop culture reference here is Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Spock was right that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but Captain Kirk was just as right - maybe more so, considering what happens later - in not accepting this "axiom" in this case.
The AAP, and others, have gone overboard over Eli Stone, if you ask me, but this is how it should be. I'd expect nothing less if the tables were turned and the proverbial shoe were on the other foot.