Can Misinformation During a Health Crisis Be Considered Criminal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jim mcnamara
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
A prominent anti-vaccination advocate in Samoa was arrested amid a measles epidemic that has resulted in 63 deaths, primarily among young children. The individual promoted ineffective treatments like Vitamin C and papaya leaf extract, while publicly denouncing the government's vaccination efforts. The discussion highlights the legal implications of inciting others to disregard public health laws, drawing parallels to restrictions on free speech when it poses a risk to public safety. Participants debated the balance between freedom of expression and the responsibility to prevent harm, emphasizing that promoting false medical advice during a health crisis can lead to severe consequences. The conversation also touched on broader themes of misinformation, the historical context of speech restrictions, and the societal responsibility to regulate harmful practices, especially when they threaten vulnerable populations.
  • #51
Very topic-specific:

Clearly, low vaccination rates are a public health crisis in many places. It sickens/injures many people and it kills a few people. This behavior is 100% within the realm of government's responsibility to regulate (outlaw). And since most vaccines are taken in childhood, it is relatively easy to regulate; all you have to do is provide free vaccines and make them compulsory for school, daycare, camps, etc. Other public accessible businesses can do it as well, for their employees and even clients (nurses-patients, DMV workers, etc).

There is no need to ban speech and as the discussion showed, it's a door I do not wish to open because clearly once it is open, giant container ships start driving through it.
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Evo said:
Well, he was giving medical advice to treat measles with Vitamin C and papaya and medical advice against vaccines. He was giving medical advice, he doesn't have a license.
If he's not unclear about the facts that he's neither a licensed physician nor a holder of a medical degree from an accredited institution, then what he says should be regarded as his personal opinion, and not as the unlicensed practice of medicine or as the dispensing of medical advice.

But this was in Samoa; not American Samoa -- they don't have the same Constitutional protections of free speech and freedom of the press as we have.

If a decently rights-respecting government with good reason prohibits some potentially harmful speech, I wouldn't see much cause for becoming a rebel over it, but I also think you can't by suppressing free speech inoculate everyone against foolhardy granting of credence to quackery.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Evo and russ_watters
  • #53
russ_watters said:
A parallel in the US could be banning Confederate speech.
A ludicrous comparison. The Southern States wanted secession; not conquest, and they certainly were not genocidal. I acknowledge that the institution of slavery was unconscionable and that it was one of the pivotal and most divisive issues in the war between the Union and the Confederacy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
sysprog said:
A ludicrous comparison.
I'm the one who said it, so I fixed your quote.

I'm not saying the Confederates were Nazis, I'm saying they were a political group who's existence could be banned under the same logic (posing a threat to the country), regardless of the details of the threat. But that isn't a thing in the US, nor do I believe it should be.

Let's not make this something it's not. No comparisons between the Nazis and confederacy, no arguing the civil war.
 
  • #55
russ_watters said:
I'm the one who said it, so I fixed your quote.

I'm not saying the Confederates were Nazis, I'm saying they were a political group who's existence could be banned under the same logic (posing a threat to the country), regardless of the details of the threat. But that isn't a thing in the US, nor do I believe it should be.

Let's not make this something it's not. No comparisons between the Nazis and confederacy, no arguing the civil war.
Ooops -- thanks -- sorry for the misattribution, @russ_watters and @fresh_42 -- and yeah, it occurs to me that my post tended toward pushing things further from intratopicality. 😌
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #56
It seems to me that Edwin Tamasese (the Samoan arestee) is not really an originator of the misguidance that he's presented on social media. I think that 'Kelly Brogan, MD', for example, is more directly culpable. She should know better than to present unsupported sophistries against vaccination as if they were not at best grossly irresponsible and clearly more harmful than helpful. I think she's reckless if she's not deliberately harmful. I think that compared to https://kellybroganmd.com/vaccines-fit-paleo-lifestyle/ originated by Ms. Brogan (yes, apparently she earned her MD degree; however, her misconduct makes me reluctant to call her 'Dr. Brogan'), the foolishness presented by Mr. Tamase is merely faithful repetition of things that he's uptaken from professionally crafted nonsense.

Here are a few snippets from the provax populist side of the contest on this topic:
:Andrew L (on Twitter)" said:
Can you explain why better nutrition and sanitation eliminated polio in 1954-55 but waited until 1964 for measles? It's very sneaky of nutrition and sanitation to kick in only at the same year vaccines are released.
—Andrew L
1576217973126.png


1576217454120.png
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top