Ahhhh...dealing with grey areas...... I'm not sure about where you live, but here, at least, the answer to your question is largely irrelevant. I'll illustrate why with an example. Did you know that in Ontario, Canada, if you are an alcoholic who drinks to excess and by doing so, you endanger your own safety and that of other people, there's nothing anybody can do to stop you from drinking? Unless you want to help yourself, you're free to continue drinking as much as you want to. It's irrelevant to the healthcare system that such a person is a drain on its resources because they're sick and/or hospitalized all the time. It's irrelevant that the damage alcoholics inflict on those who know and love them is considerable, or that public safety is at risk if such a person gets behind the wheel of a car while drunk or if they become violent. To my way of thinking, such an affliction is profoundly dysfunctional and it's ironic to me that a person who tries to commit suicide from any other type of mental illness can have their freedoms taken away to protect, and hopefully rehabilitate them, while an alcoholic can commit suicide slowly over decades and they're totally free to do it. By comparison, your example of someone refusing vaccination seems like a much lesser danger to society. Just because someone refuses vaccination doesn't guarantee they'll contract a disease or even that they'll die from it if they do. Though they might allow disease to retain a foothold in the population by choosing not to vaccinate themselves, everyone else is still free to choose vaccination and protect themselves anyway. There are different degrees of functionality, and frankly, we all have dysfunctional habits, so where do we draw the hard line and pick these "fights" you asked about in your post? Do we pick them with smokers? People who play extreme sports? People who eat a whole bag of potato chips daily? People who never exercise? People who refuse to eat broccoli 'cause they just don't like it? (lol) The grey areas are always a slippery slope and no matter how society regards them, its task is to develop a policy that balances public safety and welfare with freedom for individual choice. At some point, society has to decide where along the spectrum of danger a dysfunctional reality or belief becomes a significant risk that individual freedom becomes a secondary consideration. I actually did consider this point in my original post on the idea of regarding beliefs as functional / dysfunctional vs "right" / "wrong", but hopefully I've made it a little clearer this time around.