Contents page 1 — Please only if it is pure and natural! Page 2 — Disgusted opponents before vaccinations? Page 3 — Moral intuitions are not good principles On a page
Shortly after the Professor of medicine Paul Offit published a book about Impfmythen, he speaks with the New York Times: “I go into bookstores to sign books. The can be nasty. There are parents who really believe that vaccines hurt their children, and for that I am incredibly evil. You hate me.” Nine years later, in the last year, a movie for excitement, in which the documentary filmmaker David Sieveking says, to an individual vaccination plan for his children to develop. As his Film Instilled by Experts and the media with strong words as unscientific and biased is criticized, he reacts thin-skinned. He was “speechless in the face of the aggressive type,” with the contribution “” to be convicted. A year later, at the beginning of may – the Minister of health, Jens Spahn, a vaccination for measles. The hatred of the opponents is likely to be him.
Why is the debate around vaccinations so emotional? Why you caused so much excitement and why she seems to polarize so much? One answer is that the debate is happening in many places just beyond the facts, but also not more, only opinions turns. She works in the morally inflated idea of perfect physical purity and naturalness. And when it comes to morality, there is a dispute exhausting. It is a question that people find something deep in themselves right or wrong.
There are parents who really believe that vaccines hurt their children, and for that I am incredibly evil. You hate me.
Paul Offit, a Professor of medicine
evidence delivered before a year and a half, a study that inquired into the settings of around 1,000 parents with children. Scientists from the medical Professor Saad Omer (an Interview with him at the scheduled vaccination, you can read here) to vaccinations parents interviewed, only their settings, and they divided in three groups: Impfbefürworter, slightly skeptical and very skeptical parents. Then you determined on the basis of a questionnaire, the moral Beliefs. The result: The skeptical parents had different morals than the Impfbefürworter (Nature of Human Behaviour: Amin et al., 2017).
The psychology of morals
Now, the researchers are not asked to consent to the classical moral theories or asked questions that would otherwise be applied in ethical discussions, such as: Should you let a man be executed when he raped and killed? Let people live against each other to compensate for? Or: Can you help people Die?
no, you used a moral psychological model. This science assumes that Evolution has a decisive role in our moral intuitions. Through the settings, which would have been good for the Survival of man would be set simply. Want an obvious example: that the Weak are protected, makes moms and dads to be good parents. And the better the parents, the higher the probability that the children grow up and even young. So, the genetic characteristics of careful parents put on a social level. Not only that, but it Is the nature of people is good for the community, can change this according to and also culturally. Weak to protect can become a social Norm.
measles vaccination the measles is vaccination -?
this year is supposed to occur in Germany, measles vaccination in force. You should apply for medical personnel, but especially for School – and kindergarten children. If the parents do not provide vaccination booklet, can be excluded the children from the day care. In the case of school children, the parents should pay up to 2,500 Euro fine.
opinions on whether or not the vaccination is appropriate. Many experts, such as the Impfexperte of the Robert Koch-Institute, Ole Wichmann, see you more critical and point out that there is especially in adults gaps. Health psychologist Cornelia Betsch advised in addition to other measures to increase vaccination rates, to exploit.
Professor of medicine Saad Omer, however, said a vaccination could be “appropriate”, if you consider the scientific evidence on the topic. And Thomas Mertens, head of the Standing Committee on vaccination, stressed that “the issue of mandatory vaccination is a political decision [] and not a decision of the science”.
