Well, the worst examples of forcing medical treatment on folks involve "mental health" stuff.
For example, Alan Turing being "treated" for his homosexuality. Or the favorite Soviet trick with political dissidents that were a bit to prominent to "disappear". They got certified as nuts and committed to asylums. Where they were "treated" to "cure" them.
But in essence the precedent says "What the state deems best for you is more important than what *you* think is best for you"
On the other hand, yiu *do* have cases like Typhoid Mary where they finally *had* to confine her because she refused to accept that she was spreading disease. And insisted on working as a cook. Even using assumed names.
But failing to vaccinate is *not* a danger to the general public as long as the number of people doing so is low.
Before the granola brigade started buying into the "vaccines are bad" meme, the rate of unvaccinated was only 1-2%. Which is well within the safety margins.
Since we do not *need* 100% coverage, we can tolerate some folks who aren't going to do it.
Even having communities (like the Amish?) who "all" fail to do it is a danger to *them*, not *us* as long as the general public keeps the numbers up.
Trying for "complete safety" is usually a bad idea, because you'll never get there, and attempts to do so involve a lot more government interference than is good for us. Just look at the results of trying to be "100%" safe from terrorists.
no subject
For example, Alan Turing being "treated" for his homosexuality. Or the favorite Soviet trick with political dissidents that were a bit to prominent to "disappear". They got certified as nuts and committed to asylums. Where they were "treated" to "cure" them.
But in essence the precedent says "What the state deems best for you is more important than what *you* think is best for you"
On the other hand, yiu *do* have cases like Typhoid Mary where they finally *had* to confine her because she refused to accept that she was spreading disease. And insisted on working as a cook. Even using assumed names.
But failing to vaccinate is *not* a danger to the general public as long as the number of people doing so is low.
Before the granola brigade started buying into the "vaccines are bad" meme, the rate of unvaccinated was only 1-2%. Which is well within the safety margins.
Since we do not *need* 100% coverage, we can tolerate some folks who aren't going to do it.
Even having communities (like the Amish?) who "all" fail to do it is a danger to *them*, not *us* as long as the general public keeps the numbers up.
Trying for "complete safety" is usually a bad idea, because you'll never get there, and attempts to do so involve a lot more government interference than is good for us. Just look at the results of trying to be "100%" safe from terrorists.