During the height of the COVID19 pandemic debacle, suggestive reasoning in advocating for Federal vaccine mandates was used to nudge the unthinkable. This observation is directed at a 2022 article by Fraser and Neuss in the journal Chest. At a time when it was already known that the vaccines failed to prevent transmission, the authors nevertheless attempted to nudge subtly toward a nationalized approach to vaccine mandates without explicitly stating this position. Their approach is easily criticized for its passive-aggressive tone, lack of clarity, and failure to fully engage with counterarguments.
I will argue that via a detailed analysis of the principle of informed consent. I will argue that solicited, explicit, and voluntary agreement before administering medical procedures, particularly vaccinations, without pretext, coercion or presumption, is a basic human right. The Vermont Supreme Court’s recent ruling, interpreted by some as allowing schools to vaccinate children without explicit parental consent, is highlighted as an anomalous but significant threat to informed consent and parental rights. In particular, in addition to rights to choose (accept or decline) proferred medical options, this ruling potentially enables the state to enroll children in long-term vaccine safety studies without parental knowledge or consent, contravening ethical standards outlined in 45 CFR 46, the Common Rule, and other federal regulations designed to protect vulnerable populations.
Case examples, such as Murthy v. Missouri (2024) and Medical Professionals for Informed Consent v. Bassett (2023), are used to illustrate the importance of maintaining individual rights and informed consent in public health policies. These cases underscore the necessity for clear legislative frameworks and robust protections to prevent overreach and maintain public trust.
I call for more direct and transparent discussions on vaccine mandates, urging a balanced approach that respects individual autonomy and informed consent while addressing public health needs. The current trend of suggestive reasoning and ambiguous policy advocacy undermines ethical principles and fails to provide a solid foundation for public health strategies.
Hellbound and Down 