2nd One: Vaccine Courts Archaic But Integral

In 2003, the measles killed over 500,000 children worldwide. Type B Influenza kills approximately 500,000 children a year while diphtheria and pertussis kill 300,000. According to UNICEF’s statistics, more than 30 million children are unimmunized around the world because they cannot afford the necessary vaccines or because their parents are uninformed as to how vaccines work.

Every year, however, hundreds of lawsuits are brought against the makers of these life-saving drugs by the parents of children who have been harmed by the side-effects of vaccinations.

On Tuesday, October 12, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a case that could have changed the way vaccines and vaccinations work in our country.

The case, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, was an appeal of a previous case in opposition to a ruling made by the Supreme Court in 1986. This legislation set up “vaccine courts” to act as a shield in disputes between folk who had qualms with vaccines and their side-effects and the manufacturers of the vaccines. The primary function of these courts, and the fund set up simultaneously to provide recompense to the claimants, were to ensure a stable supply of vaccines into the country.

Lawsuits are an important part of our legal system. They provide an incentive for companies to act correctly or to the best of their ability so as to avoid being sued and having to pay out the nose. For a company whose ultimate goal is good business, it isn’t wise of them to do shoddy work and a lawsuit is the negative reinforcement that helps make sure that doesn’t happen.

There is a problem with this system, however. If a lawsuit were to be brought against drug companies every time something that possibly could have had something to do with vaccinations occurred, drug companies could deem vaccines too risky to their business and stop producing them.

Tuesday’s case ended in a 4-4 split between the Supreme Court justices which leaves the original ruling by the lower court intact. That ruling upheld the 1986 law and told the claimants that while what they were going through was a tragedy, they had to abide by the decision of the vaccine courts.

There is no easy answer to this problem, something that the justices seemed to think as well, judging by their decision or lack of one.

Vaccines should be regulated. They are an integral part of our medical system but that can’t stop them from having to be the best and safest they can be. And vaccines have a marked impact on our health. According to UNICEF, cases of polio decreased from 350,000 in 1988 to less than 1,300 in 2004 – a drop in a life-threatening disease that would be impossible without vaccines.

The FDA should keep closer tabs on vaccines and their possible side-effects so frustrated parents don’t have to turn to the outlaw justice of lawsuits to secure the results they want. With this in mind, however, the 1986 ruling needs to continue to stand. For all that the drug companies are like the mean kids in the sandbox, threatening to take their toys and go home if we don’t play fair, playing by their rules is the best choice for everyone.

For all that it pains me to say it, in this case Mr. Spock is right – “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

Sockpuppet Accounts Article - Originally Published in The Beacon

Don't ask me when, however... lol.  Since I can't find it online, I'm posting my last 2 articles here.  Enjoy.
-------------------

Depending on how long you’ve been on the Internet, you may or may not have heard the term “sockpuppet”, the slightly silly term for an Internet identity created to say something you don’t want ascribed to your actual Internet handle.

Sockpuppet accounts can be used for a variety of “nefarious” uses on the Internet, and very often these uses are what lead to them being a hated form of communication on forums and blogs across the ‘net.

Oftentimes, one person will have multiple sockpuppet accounts and start arguments with themselves on controversial subjects. This is a relatively easy way to incite sympathy or arguments online. After all, if no one knows that all of those people arguing with you are you, nice people are going to come to your aid.

The main contention the people of the Internet seem to have with sockpuppets comes back to the idea that life online should follow similar rules as life in the real world. So the Golden Rule should apply along with the caveat “if you’re not willing to say it as ‘yourself’, don’t say it at all.”

This logic is faulty, however. It presupposes that the Internet is the same as Real Life or that it should be.

The Internet has changed the world. This isn’t an argument, it’s a fact. Social media has changed the way we interact, online shopping has changed the way we consume, up-to-the-minute documentation has changed the way we understand the news. Who is to say that sockpuppets aren’t the logical evolution of how we as the public interact online.

There are multiple Twitter accounts for fictional characters like Lord Voldemort or Darth Vader. Since these characters don’t have access to the Internet, we have to assume that their accounts are being run by fans. This doesn’t strike me as that different from a sockpuppet account. After all, there are 17 accounts ascribed to the Dark Lord – they can’t all be him. Yet no one comments on these accounts, accusing their owners of acting in a cowardly manner and demanding that they post under their true identities.

One of the biggest issues with sockpuppet accounts is linked with authors anonymously reviewing and commenting on their own books.

When authors comment on their own books anonymously, leaving glowing recommendations and five-star reviews, it supposedly throws the entire system out of whack.

This issue, which has been occurring with frequency since a 2004 glitch in Amazon’s system revealed anonymous poster’s true identities, has been hailed as “dishonest” and can be seen as a breach in the contract between the author and their readers.

However, by commenting as readers on their own books, authors aren’t breaching their author-reader relationship, they are in fact just taking the next step in our social interaction.

The advent of the Internet and its ability to break down previously constructed social barriers has completely changed how we interact with the world around us. And if that means that some people would rather remain anonymous in order to express their true opinions or incite argument, then I say more power to them.