With, the word mandatory creeping into government vaccinations programs, basic human instincts, thinking perceptions, and judgments are going to be repressed and stunted by a distorted reality of the new normal.
This is an existential dilemma that is now once more confronting the individual to accept this is induced of mandatory either by force or by ideological persuasion to submit to the power of the collective – and the stronger ethical reason against mandating vaccination is more freedoms disappear. You could say with modern technology mandatory (which is a Confucius philosophy) will develop into an autocratic ideology with infrastructures that will allow it to permeate all levels of society to create conditions that will be subservient to a clearly defined hierarchy of authorities, run by deep learning algorithms that are not transparent.
The mandate will be that it is inconsistent to accept mandatory lockdown but reject mandatory vaccination.
The latter can achieve a much greater good at a much smaller cost.
Self-sacrifice will be promoted as patriotism promising equality and social justice will be aided and abetted by the extremes of social conformity demanded by governments.
But the problem with all of this is despite promising headlines, the trials and pharmaceutical processes surrounding vaccinations have not yet been scrutinized.
There is still limited data on long-term safety and efficacy and we don’t know how long immunity lasts.
None of the trials were designed to tell us if the vaccine prevents serious disease or virus transmission.
As mandates represent a policy option that interferes with individual liberty and autonomy, they should be considered only if they would increase the prevention of significant risks of morbidity and mortality and/or promote significant and unequivocal public health benefits.
Data should be available that demonstrate the vaccine being mandated has been found to be safe in the populations for whom the vaccine is to be made mandatory.
In the absence of sufficient evidence of safety, there would be no guarantee that mandating vaccination would achieve the goal of protecting public health.
Furthermore, coercive exposure of populations to a potentially harmful product would violate the ethical obligation to protect the public from unnecessary harm when the harm the product might cause outweighs the degree of harm that might exist without the product.
Despite its name, ‘mandatory vaccination” is not truly compulsory, i.e., force or
the threat of criminal sanction is not used in cases of non-compliance.
It is therefore the kind of mandatory vaccination described at the top of this post.
That being said, the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and evidence on vaccine safety, efficacy, and effectiveness continue to evolve (including with respect to variants of concern).
If we want to avoid a Chines style of living mandatory vaccination” policies limit individual choice in non-trivial ways by making vaccination a condition of, for example, attending school or working in particular industries or settings, like health care.
Even if there is a sufficient supply and a mandate for vaccination of the general public is considered necessary and proportionate, policy-makers should still consider whether a mandate for the general public would threaten public trust or exacerbate inequity for the most vulnerable or marginalized. Whether mandatory COVID-19 vaccination is an ethically justifiable policy option. Similar to other public health policies, decisions about mandatory vaccination should be supported by the best available evidence and should be made by legitimate public health authorities in a manner that is transparent, fair, nondiscriminatory, and involves the input of affected parties.
Contemporary forms of “mandatory vaccination” compel vaccination by direct or indirect threats of imposing restrictions in cases of non-compliance.
In the end, it all boils down to who owns your body.
All human comments are appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.