Question:

Should the World Health Organisation vaccinate the endangered tribes of the world even if they don't want it?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

People like these.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/the-jarawa-onge-and-sentinelese-of-the-andaman-islands/

They have no idea of the danger they are in from things like rubella (half of them died from normal measles a few years ago). They have absolutely no resistance to them, and virgin territory outbreaks of things like Rubella can have a 90% mortality rate. Is it worth forcing vaccinations to save their lives and cultures?

 Tags:

   Report

10 ANSWERS


  1. Short answer: Yes.

    Forced vaccination is a violation of personal freedoms, but so are quarantines (and there are many, many cases of that).

    One historical example of a forced vaccination is the 1972 smallpox outbreak in Yugoslavia (see source 1). In retrospect, it was the correct decision: there isn't much purpose to "human rights" if no humans are around to have them.

    Ideally, any vaccination should be done with the permission of the Tribal leaders. But such consent is difficult to obtain without educating the people about disease, vaccination and many other things, which ultimately irreversibly changes their culture. If resources and manpower are available the WHO should educate the people. A parallel can be drawn with the handling of the AIDS epidemic in Africa. According to a Nature article from 2000 (see source 2), the leaders of the Hlabisa village consented to using an experimental HIV vaccine. If the people suffer from a disease and are willing to undergo an experimental treatment that may not work, by what reason should they be denied those that do?


  2. Ed V. You are perpetrating a lie told against Napoleon Chagnon that turned out not to have one shred of supporting evidence.

    I am surprised you let that base canard by, Mathilda. If anthropology is to be taken seriously the myths must go. No more Margret Mead, Carlos Castaneda's and no more libel against those whose findings upset ideologues.

    Now, as to your question. Force? I think not. Now, if the danger of disease was spread to all the world, then maybe so, but we have yet to do something about such spreads except quarantine.

  3. I would think that when an outbreak occurs, we wouldn't have to Force it on them, but that they would be begging for it... and we should provide them with it.  As for taking preventative steps, that is more delicate because what if we do give a bum batch and get a batch of patients sick, or thier immune systems can't handle it... though these are all what ifs, they are things to consider because world media would jump all over the WHO saying that they infected people, and it could get spun all kinds of ways.  Education, and giving them the option would be the best way... tell them why they need the vaccine, and if they actively choose not to take it, let them know all they have to do is ask, and it is there for them.  It shouldn't offend the cultural setting, and yet allows for the option at thier own pace.  They may not want it now, but after some discussion may choose to accept it when they see the other tribes nearby dying.  If they are staunch on rejecting the vaccinations, I would say that we should make one last attempt during an outbreak, but ultimately leave it to them.

  4. Sure. Make it a sport and use trank guns to get the vaccine out. Given, just coming into the area would be enough to spread disease before the vaccine can take effect, and oh shucks if someone on the team has a cold.

    Issues include contacting them without spreading disease; convincing them to accept the vaccines; and dealing with those that just say "No."

    My view is to maintain the isolation and left professionals go in to make contact. The provide medical care. In developing nations it's the vet and the dentist that people really want.

    Arthur C. Clarke wrote a short story where earth was a lost colony. The home world has abandoned us due to a repulsive disfiguring disease. However they now had a cure. The story ends with "If any of you are still white, we can cure you." Should they innoculate this civilization?

  5. I would think that there is a policy regarding human respect. An adult should be allowed to make a decision after being informed of the consequences.  The only way I see to help would be for the government to mandate children be vaccinated.

  6. You seem to like moral dilemmas.

    Before answering the question another issue must be addressed: Should human populations that willingly avoid contact with modern cultures be left alone? This has been controversial in the Amazon Forest, since there are some groups that still avoid contact, although others have actually "left the jungle". If their isolation is enforced from the outside then there would be no need to vaccinate because no contact means no source of infection as "Missionhtg" has suggested.

    If isolation cannot be enforced or else those people do not accept it voluntarily, then a second ethical issue springs out: should "knowledgeable" adults force "ignorant" adults to do something "for their own good".  This of course has happened a lot. As I have phrased it, you might recognize other situations which can exemplify the same problem even within urban centers.

    Getting women to accept pap smears "for their own good" can be difficult even in urban centers. But amongst ethnic groups that are not in isolation you find women over 50 that have never had a pap smear and are not interested in it sitting side by side others that wish to take the test but have no access to it. Can the former ones be forced to take it? Can they be convinced through information like the latter ones? Would it not be rape or sexual abuse because it was "for their own good"?

    Edit: as I said, enforcing isolation from outside would solve the health issue. Still, what has to be adressed first is the responsability of States (or the UN in your example) to people that do not wish any relationship with them, that reject help. Does this relieve States form responsability? I think not. But "protection" can take a forcefull mask (were'nt indigenous children protected from their primitive parents by taking them away from them?) or a human form.

  7. I think you shouldn't really force them but it would not be moral if you didn't try to explain it to them the best you could and let them know they and their children will probalby die without it. Perhaps the government of Brazil could but not the WHO.

    It is funny, I remember reading Chagnons book but don't remember the disease from vacinations.

  8. No, I don't think so at all.  They are a group of people who have their own civilization apart from the rest of us and I think they should be left as their own.  Personally if we would leave them alone and not be getting into their business,they probably wouldn't be in much threat to disease because they wouldn't be around us spreading them.  I think tribes such as this are amazing and beautiful as such an "innocent" people to the rest of our world.

  9. Look what happened with Napoleon Chagnon and the Yanomamo of Brazil. They infected many of the natives with a "vaccine," which ended up killing a lot of them. It would be great if we could just leave them alone, or wear medical masks when we visit remote tribes.

  10. I think so.

    Firstly, these are humans with personalities and families that they love. They wouldn't want to lose their lives or their loved ones. Secondly, these people are a part of human history. Living human history. It would be sad to see them wiped out by disease. Thirdly, they could be of scientific use.

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 10 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.