Individual liberty VS benefiting society

steddyeddy · 13-02-2015 06:53PM #1

Some of you might be aware of the tragic story of the Ashkenazi Jews and Tay-Sach's disease. These sub population of Jews were disproportionally affected by a horrible metabolic disease called Tay Sachs disease. The cause of the disease was a recessive gene coding for an enzyme called hexosaminidase. Large proportions of these Jews carried the recessive gene causing this disease. Eventually the community instituted genetic screening of couples who wanted to get married. If both people carried the gene (it's recessive meaning you need to inherit both genes to acquire the disease) you were advised not to get married. This was voluntary but couples who disobeyed this were often shunned.

The effect of this were phenomenal. The disease was nearly eradicated in the population. My question is should the right to individual liberty outweigh the gain to society.

This applies to questions like should vaccines be a legal requirement (measles is coming back in America) and any other personal liberties like the right to receive a better education than others.

Whosthis · 13-02-2015 07:02PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Some of you might be aware of the tragic story of the Ashkenazi Jews and Tay-Sach's disease. These sub population of Jews were disproportionally affected by a horrible metabolic disease called Tay Sachs disease. The cause of the disease was a recessive gene coding for an enzyme called hexosaminidase. Large proportions of these Jews carried the recessive gene causing this disease. Eventually the community instituted genetic screening of couples who wanted to get married. If both people carried the gene (it's recessive meaning you need to inherit both genes to acquire the disease) you were advised not to get married. This was voluntary but couples who disobeyed this were often shunned.

The effect of this were phenomenal. The disease was nearly eradicated in the population. My question is should the right to individual liberty outweigh the gain to society.

This applies to questions like should vaccines be a legal requirement (measles is coming back in America) and any other personal liberties like the right to receive a better education than others.

A little of topic but has this got anything to do with the origins of the word?

Tony EH · 13-02-2015 07:20PM

Not even remotely.

Whosthis · 13-02-2015 07:25PM

If I'm honest, I'm a little disappointed.

Nazi

Origin

German, abbreviation representing the pronunciation of Nati- in Nationalsozialist ‘national socialist’, probably by analogy with Sozi, from Sozialist ‘socialist’.

darkpagandeath · 13-02-2015 07:27PM

Hang on what was the name of them lads into Eugenics again ?

Calibos · 13-02-2015 08:00PM

I'd imagine it was no big deal for them as their marriages are arranged anyway. Thus it was just another item on a checklist for the parents or rabbi to check when arranging the marriages. Would it matter at the end of the day whether a suitor that the girl never met anyway was ruled out because he had a lisp or a particular gene.

Hande hoche! · 13-02-2015 08:10PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Hang on what was the name of them lads into Eugenics again ?

The Swedes were mad for it.

Tarzana2 · 13-02-2015 08:16PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

My question is should the right to individual liberty outweigh the gain to society.

Yes. And the subject of your OP doesn't go against that really. The couples were advised but it was still up to them.

I hate anti-vaccers. HATE. I have an interest in vaccine development. I have received some weird and wonderful vaccines in my life. So much so that I'd be able to tell some bioterrorists to come at me, brah.

But yet I believe it should be a choice not whether you get a vaccine. Or your kid gets a vaccine.

13-02-2015 08:18PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Yes. And the subject of your OP doesn't go against that really. The couples were advised but it was still up to them.

I hate anti-vaccers. HATE. I have an interest in vaccine development. I have received some weird and wonderful vaccines in my life. So much so that I'd be able to tell some bioterrorists to come at me, brah.

But yet I believe it should be a choice not whether you get a vaccine. Or your kid gets a vaccine.

And if they get shunned - playschool having requirements for vaccines to enrol kids - i think that's ok as a consequence too
I think liberty kind of ends at the right to harm others, which is essentially what they're doing

wendell borton · 13-02-2015 08:18PM

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”
-Spock

Voltex · 13-02-2015 08:22PM

The freedom of choice still existed....but to get a little boring and "Austrian", the couples who ignored the advice of medical experts would have a lower marginal utility associated with their family planning than those who took on the advice.

steddyeddy · 13-02-2015 10:09PM

Interesting reading about the measles outbreak in America. The interesting point is made that some African nations have better vaccination than America.

All this sentiment about really hoping people vaccinate and saying people should vaccinate is lovely but there's a few considerations being left out. There are some kids who can't get vaccinated. Your choice to not vaccinate your kids is putting them in danger. I don't believe you should have that choice.

Not vaccinating your kids also creates something more dangerous than one case of the measles. It gives the disease a reservoir. It gives it space to mutate and increase virulence, transmission rate or method and or disease. That's not far fetched it's happening now. If you don't wipe out a disease it mutates. Especially if you putting selective pressure on it.

Also it's not about individual choice. You're basically saying people should have a choice to their child and others in danger.

The nationwide measles outbreak that started at Disneyland in Southern California is now hitting home in the tech community in Northern California, with word this week that a LinkedIn employee in the San Francisco office may have exposed hundreds of Bay Area commuters to the disease. Meantime, at least one operator of day care centers in Silicon Valley is urging parents to make sure their children's vaccines are up to date.

LinkedIn said it learned on February 10 that one of its employees had been diagnosed, and immediately notified all of its 7,000 employees worldwide. But the unidentified employee had already made multiple trips on Bay Area Rapid Transit between February 4th and 6th, and had eaten in a San Francisco restaurant on the 4th.

"We are working very closely with the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and following their recommended protocol for managing this situation," LinkedIn spokesman Hani Durzi said in a statement. "The health and well-being of our employees is our absolute top priority, and we will take whatever steps are advised to ensure their safety and the safety of the general public."

The large concentration of young parents working at the region's technology firms has brought the measles outbreak into focus.

Wired Magazine, citing California Department of Health data, reported this week that several on-site day care facilities at technology firms have vaccination rates too low to provide the so-called "herd immunity" that is supposed to keep the disease from spreading.

Experts generally say if 92 percent of the community is vaccinated, it should be enough to protect the general population, though some caution the figure should be more than 95 percent.

But Wired found rates as low as 59 percent at a Cisco Systems facility in San Jose, and 68 percent at a Google facility in Mountain View. CNBC verified the figures in the state database.

Both companies say the numbers represent a snapshot of data, and may not reflect the most recent immunization history reported by parents. Google notes that in 2013-14, the facility in question had an 81 percent immunization rate. And Cisco says it continually works with its employees and daycare contractors to make certain records are up to date.
Read MoreSome African nations better vaccinated than the US

"The health and well-being of the children, families and staff at Cisco childcare facilities are a top priority," spokeswoman Robyn Blum said in a statement.

Bright Horizons, which provides on-site day care services for several tech firms in the region, urged parents in a letter dated February 6 to make certain that both their children's and their own vaccinations are kept up to date, particularly the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.

"We want to protect everyone in our centers from the serious risks posed by measles and the best way to do that is to make sure that as many people as possible are vaccinated," the letter said.

Low vaccination rates at a few facilities are not necessarily a problem, UCLA pediatric infectious disease specialist Dr. James Cherry told CNBC in an interview, but the more unvaccinated people there are, the greater the risk.

"We've always had these little pockets, and through the years we've had unvaccinated travelers go to other countries come back and find all these people in these schools, but it didn't go anywhere because the rest of the population had good levels of immunity," he said.

Now, that is increasingly not the case—not just in daycare facilities, but in schools and workplaces. As a result, he said, the outbreak is likely to spread.

"We're in a situation now where for various reasons we're not anywhere near where we should be," he said.

shruikan2553 · 13-02-2015 10:23PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Hang on what was the name of them lads into Eugenics again ?

A lot of people were into it until some Austrian fella got involved and it wasnt cool any more.

bluewolf wrote: »

And if they get shunned - playschool having requirements for vaccines to enrol kids - i think that's ok as a consequence too
I think liberty kind of ends at the right to harm others, which is essentially what they're doing

This would be my opinion on the matter too. Do what you want but as soon as their is a risk of harm to others we need to look closer at it and put in restrictions.

Does your choice of crisp flavour affect others? No? Then go ahead.
Can driving a car harm others? Yes. Is there a benefit to using them and will it cause other problems to ban it completely? Yes so control it, people need a licence and insurance to drive.
Dont want to vaccinate your kids? Unless you can provide some evidence that it causes harm then you can keep you children at home where they can incubate diseases to your hearts content. All we need is for people to be reminded the harm such diseases can do and they will see sense again.

Tarzana2 · 13-02-2015 10:24PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

All this sentiment about really hoping people vaccinate and saying people should vaccinate is lovely but there's a few considerations being left out. There are some kids who can't get vaccinated. Your choice to not vaccinate your kids is putting them in danger. I don't believe you should have that choice.

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of any legislation which governs what people do with their bodies, so it should remain a choice, IMO. It is an individual choice, whether we like it or not.

As for "wiping out" diseases. How do we know there's not a reservoir somewhere for say, smallpox? Some animal that it doesn't harm but that it can use as an incubator, but isn't in contact with humans much, say? You can never with certainty say a disease is eradicated, IMO.

The One Doctor · 13-02-2015 10:25PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Hang on what was the name of them lads into Eugenics again ?

The Americans.

Turtwig · 13-02-2015 10:41PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of any legislation which governs what people do with their bodies, so it should remain a choice, IMO. It is an individual choice, whether we like it or not.

As for "wiping out" diseases. How do we know there's not a reservoir somewhere for say, smallpox? Some animal that it doesn't harm but that it can use as an incubator, but isn't in contact with humans much, say? You can never with certainty say a disease is eradicated, IMO.

You can't but animals aren't humans. Similar yes. Still not human. It's a lot easier for a virus that is harmful to humans to mutate in humans than it is in something that's genome isn't identical. (Even if we are talking only a few decimal percentages.)

Iirc, eradication in medical jargon is just when disease incidences drop below a certain threshold. Kind of like full employment is still 5% unemployed.

OP,

I don't support mandatory vaccination. That said, I do realise we have a problem in society. Measles in on the way back and Polio is reaching higher levels in part of Syria that may infect Europe. Which is massively under vaccinated were an outbreak to occur.

Education is vital.

steddyeddy · 13-02-2015 10:44PM

bluewolf wrote: »

And if they get shunned - playschool having requirements for vaccines to enrol kids - i think that's ok as a consequence too
I think liberty kind of ends at the right to harm others, which is essentially what they're doing

Not getting the vaccine is potentially harming others full stop. There's no guarantee that the kids won't come into contact with other kids.

The One Doctor · 13-02-2015 10:51PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Not getting the vaccine is potentially harming others full stop. There's no guarantee that the kids won't come into contact with other kids.

Interesting side note: A baby's poo is full of live polio virus for about a month after their polio vaccination.

I'll be washing my hands VERY carefully in a few weeks.

Capt'n Midnight · 13-02-2015 10:51PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

My question is should the right to individual liberty outweigh the gain to society.

This applies to questions like should vaccines be a legal requirement (measles is coming back in America) and any other personal liberties like the right to receive a better education than others.

Rights and duties are a package deal.

If you don't vaccinate then you are imposing a health burden on others you meet.

For diseases which are preventable people who could take a vaccine but don't should be required to take out insurance to cover the extra costs of treating them.

http://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/press-releases/2013/04/measles-costs

Over 2002–2003, the direct costs of measles incurred by the national health service of Italy were €17.6–22 million (about US$ 22.9–29 million). This would have paid for vaccinating up to 1.9 million children, which would also have prevented many cases of mumps and rubella. The 5154 hospitalizations during this period cost about €8.8 million (about US$ 11.5 million)

Also the insurance should cover ALL the indirect costs too. Including decent death ( 4 in that Italian outbreak ) and disability payments, not just to cover essentials but to restore peoples quality of life where possible.

In the case of Measles this means they would have to pay for the extra cost of treating it.

And let's be clear , for things like Measles it's only a matter of time before someone dies. Fatal outbreak in Wales as recently as 2013.

Also by not vaccinating for something that is totally eradicable you are condemning your children to live in a world with more suffering. You aren't protecting them. Globalisation means more exposure. If there is a breakdown in the health system during your children's lives, or if they travel the world or there are major socio-political upheavals during their lives then yeah odds their risks of catching something nasty have gone way up.

Capt'n Midnight · 13-02-2015 11:06PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

As for "wiping out" diseases. How do we know there's not a reservoir somewhere for say, smallpox? Some animal that it doesn't harm but that it can use as an incubator, but isn't in contact with humans much, say? You can never with certainty say a disease is eradicated, IMO.

Number of smallpox deaths 1900-1978 over 300,000,000
Number of smallpox deaths since, Exactly 0

Can we be 100% certain smallpox is gone forever ? No,
Can we be 99.999 999% certain there is no source in nature, pretty much

And here's the thing, even if the smallpox vaccine killed half the people who used it there would be ZERO deaths from that vaccine today, tomorrow and for all eternity.

Also, the whole point about vaccines is that even if there was a non-human reservoir for Polio or Measles it wouldn't spread to people who have been vaccinated.

Tarzana2 · 13-02-2015 11:07PM

Turtwig wrote: »

You can't but animals aren't humans. Similar yes. Still not human.

You're missing my point. I know animals aren't humans and that a microbe/virus may not affect them like it would us. That's what I meant by an animal being an unaware reservoir. It might not harm them, they may just carry it around. And may never come into with humans so it might never matter. Or they might and it might be transmitted and may reemerge, as diseases have done in the past.

Good to hear that eradication isn't saying the disease will never reemerge.

Turtwig wrote: »

Education is vital.

Agreed. Some people don't want to be educated though. Or will selectively read around a subject.

steddyeddy · 13-02-2015 11:10PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

You're missing my point. I know animals aren't humans and that a microbe/virus may not affect them like it would us. That's what I meant by an animal being an unaware reservoir. It might not harm them, they may just carry it around. And may never come into with humans so it might never matter. Or they might and it might be transmitted and may reemerge, as diseases have done in the past.

Good to hear that eradication isn't saying the disease will never reemerge.

Agreed. Some people don't want to be educated though. Or will selectively read around a subject.

TBH I think the people who are OK with people having the choice not to vaccinate need educating.

Tarzana2 · 13-02-2015 11:10PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And here's the thing, even if the smallpox vaccine killed half the people who used it there would be ZERO deaths from that vaccine today, tomorrow and for all eternity.

I'm not anti-vaccine.

Sidenote: AFAIK, nobody post-eradication has been vaccinated against smallpox?

Tarzana2 · 13-02-2015 11:11PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

TBH I think the people who are OK with people having the choice not to vaccinate need educating.

I'm OK with it. Do I need educating?

steddyeddy · 13-02-2015 11:13PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I'm OK with it. Do I need educating?

Yes I think so. You're OK that parents should have the right to put their kids and other kids in danger.

Tarzana2 · 13-02-2015 11:17PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes I think so. You're OK that parents should have the right to put their kids and other kids in danger.

Hmmm, OK. I need to be educated to have a certain opinion? Alrighty!

Instead of making pronouncements such as the above, perhaps you should focus on how scientific jargon can be distilled for consumption by the general public so that they can make more informed decisions.

Not getting vaccinated is NOT something that should be punishable by law.

reprise · 13-02-2015 11:18PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Hang on what was the name of them lads into Eugenics again ?

Fine Gael?

steddyeddy · 13-02-2015 11:19PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Hmmm, OK. I need to be educated to have a certain opinion? Alrighty!

Instead of making pronouncements such as the above, perhaps you should focus on how scientific jargon can be distilled for consumption by the general public so that they can make more informed decisions.

Yes I think you're unaware of the potential risk factors involved.

There will ALWAYS be people who choose not to vaccinate or believe in something unscientific. Talking to people doesn't always work.

Tarzana2 · 13-02-2015 11:23PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes I think you're unaware of the potential risk factors involved.

There will ALWAYS be people who choose not to vaccinate or believe in something unscientific. Talking to people doesn't always work.

I'm not unaware, my undergrad is microbiology. I'm FOR vaccination.

But I totally disagree about this being law, and patronising people who don't share your views doesn't help you.

Anyway, you tend to be a dog with a bone, so over and out!

steddyeddy · 13-02-2015 11:28PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I'm not unaware, my undergrad is microbiology. I'm FOR vaccination.

But I totally disagree about this being law, and patronising people who don't share your views doesn't help you.

Anyway, you tend to be a dog with a bone, so over and out!

Well then you totally disagree with making laws that protect children.

Turtwig · 13-02-2015 11:45PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well then you totally disagree with making laws that protect children.

That's completely OTT. opposing mandatory vaccination doesn't make you anti child protection.

steddyeddy · 13-02-2015 11:49PM

Turtwig wrote: »

That's completely OTT. opposing mandatory vaccination doesn't make you anti child protection.

How is rejecting a law that protects children's health not anti child protection?

Turtwig · 13-02-2015 11:55PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

How is rejecting a law that protects children's health not anti child protection?

Opposing one thing doesn't make you anti all things. If a liberal supported one conservative value it doesn't make them conservative and vice versa.

Capt'n Midnight · 14-02-2015 12:52AM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I'm not anti-vaccine.

Sidenote: AFAIK, nobody post-eradication has been vaccinated against smallpox?

One of the main reasons the US financed much of the global fight against smallpox was because they realised it in the long term it was cheaper than having to keep vaccinating and treating US citizens.

Yes CDC and the Russian equivalent have samples and suspect stuff has been found in old medical files, it you think about such things you won't sleep at night.

There's also stuff like Ebola , AIDS and so on, so yes there are resevoirs out there. And of course there is flu a version of which killed millions in 1918. People just have to understand that vaccines are the best defence against some pretty nasty viral infections, in fact for many there is no cure.

jank · 14-02-2015 04:27AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Some of you might be aware of the tragic story of the Ashkenazi Jews and Tay-Sach's disease. These sub population of Jews were disproportionally affected by a horrible metabolic disease called Tay Sachs disease. The cause of the disease was a recessive gene coding for an enzyme called hexosaminidase. Large proportions of these Jews carried the recessive gene causing this disease. Eventually the community instituted genetic screening of couples who wanted to get married. If both people carried the gene (it's recessive meaning you need to inherit both genes to acquire the disease) you were advised not to get married. This was voluntary but couples who disobeyed this were often shunned.

The effect of this were phenomenal. The disease was nearly eradicated in the population. My question is should the right to individual liberty outweigh the gain to society.

This applies to questions like should vaccines be a legal requirement (measles is coming back in America) and any other personal liberties like the right to receive a better education than others.

Yes, of course. Take away Individual Liberty the quick road to totalitarianism ala USSR and the Third Reich will soon be reached. Note, the couples were not banned in marrying each other.

Egginacup · 14-02-2015 04:32AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Some of you might be aware of the tragic story of the Ashkenazi Jews and Tay-Sach's disease. These sub population of Jews were disproportionally affected by a horrible metabolic disease called Tay Sachs disease. The cause of the disease was a recessive gene coding for an enzyme called hexosaminidase. Large proportions of these Jews carried the recessive gene causing this disease. Eventually the community instituted genetic screening of couples who wanted to get married. If both people carried the gene (it's recessive meaning you need to inherit both genes to acquire the disease) you were advised not to get married. This was voluntary but couples who disobeyed this were often shunned.

The effect of this were phenomenal. The disease was nearly eradicated in the population. My question is should the right to individual liberty outweigh the gain to society.

This applies to questions like should vaccines be a legal requirement (measles is coming back in America) and any other personal liberties like the right to receive a better education than others.

People with a religious belief are more susceptible to a condtion ?

jank · 14-02-2015 04:33AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well then you totally disagree with making laws that protect children.

And it starts....

biko · 14-02-2015 04:36AM

Your OP is too vague and wide so I'll just respond to the initial statement:
I think the jews came with a pretty good solution to their problem. It fought the disease the best way they could at the time.

kowloon · 14-02-2015 06:23AM

I wouldn't necessarily support forced vaccination but schools should be allowed to expel an un-vaccinated child or refuse them a place unless they have a valid medical reason for not having their vaccinations. Schools are breeding grounds for all sorts of nasties, it's not fair to the staff and pupils to introduce more risk.

Turtwig · 14-02-2015 07:18AM

biko wrote: »

Your OP is too vague and wide so I'll just respond to the initial statement:
I think the jews came with a pretty good solution to their problem. It fought the disease the best way they could at the time.

I don't think you should mention Jews and solution in the one sentence anne frankly I shouldn't have either.

Amirani · 14-02-2015 07:54AM

It's a good thread OP. I find it quite difficult to come out strongly on either side here. I'm comprehensively pro-vaccination, but the idea of forced vaccination doesn't really sit too well with me.

I think it's fair to expect that children who aren't vaccinated are excluded from the public school system (though this in itself is unfair to the child). I think vaccination should probably be optional (though ardently promoted and encouraged) until the point where it becomes apparent that the number of abstentions are at too high a risk level or if the disease is dangerous enough. And by promoted and encouraged, I mean made particularly difficult to reject - mandatory renewal of the position on a yearly or half yearly basis in which the parent has to prove they've educated themselves on the matter and fully outline their reasoning for abstention.

I would likely support a mandatory vaccination program for measles in the US at present.

Capt'n Midnight · 14-02-2015 10:26AM

Egginacup wrote: »

People with a religious belief are more susceptible to a condtion ?

Nope.

Groups with small breeding pools are.

There's people of Indian descent in South Africa with no collar bones.

wendell borton · 14-02-2015 10:55AM

If your decisions have the potential to cause harm to others then they are no longer personal. The benefits of vaccination far out way any disadvantage, it has saved more lives than other medical advancement.

14-02-2015 11:06AM

The other problem with a law like that, is that *anything* can be passed then "why do you hate children??" - whether it's actually for the children or not.
Govt have a habit of saying they'll do stuff like prop up the pubs in their manifesto - then when they come to implement that, they pretend it's "for the health of the youth".
Vaccines might be clear cut but I still don't think it should be punishable by law

Capt'n Midnight · 14-02-2015 12:24PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Vaccines might be clear cut but I still don't think it should be punishable by law

We're only talking about effective vaccines for notifiable diseases. You know the ones that are already in our legislation.
S.I. No. 452/2011 - Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Regulations 2011.

It's not that long ago that people with contagious diseases were quarantined in sanatoriums for as long as they were contagious. In the case of TB this was pretty much the rest of your life.

We live in a golden age of medicine but until very recently it looked like we'd loose effective antibiotics forever.

It's still early days but for a long time it was looking like we were returning to a world where an infected paper cut was pretty much a death sentence with amputation being the main treatment.

And that's the context you have to have at the back of your mind when thinking about some health issues. There are a lot of things out there that could undermine the health system, some political, some economic, some biological like SARS or an airborne Ebola or a new Influenza or multi drug resistant TB. Due to global warming malaria is making a comeback in Southern Europe.
Some vaccines can mean that you remove a public health risk forever, it's kinda a no-brainer amongst economists and health workers.

Permabear · 14-02-2015 12:45PM

This post has been deleted.

14-02-2015 12:49PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We're only talking about effective vaccines for notifiable diseases. You know the ones that are already in our legislation.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about tbh
Even in the first post about vaccines he's already gone off about education as well

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well then you totally disagree with making laws that protect children.

steddyeddy wrote: »

and any other personal liberties like the right to receive a better education than others.

steddyeddy · 14-02-2015 12:53PM

bluewolf wrote: »

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about tbh
Even in the first post about vaccines he's already gone off about education as well

Well my OP related to individual liberties negatively impacting on society.

14-02-2015 12:59PM

Fair enough, but it's easy enough to see how quickly laws about vaccinations can be adapted to anything purporting to be for the children

steddyeddy · 14-02-2015 01:05PM

It's not just vaccinations. In Ireland we have a relatively incidence of children being born with Phenylketonuria (PKU) (1 in 4,500 births). This is a genetic disease whereby children are born without a function phenylalanine hydroxylase enzyme. This enzyme metabolises phenylalanine, an amino acid genrating another amino acid tyrosine.

This results in a build up of phenylalanine and symptoms like mental retardation and mood swings ect. This is common in Ireland so it's common for every new born to undergo to heel prick test. This determines if your child has PKU and phenylalanine sources can be eliminated from the diet.

Some parents actually went to court over the right to refuse this test on their child's behalf. They won and now they can refuse their child a test that could prevent that child developing mental retardation. Now if that child did have PKU I think that's pretty close to child abuse.

Permabear · 14-02-2015 01:06PM

This post has been deleted.

Individual liberty VS benefiting society

Comments