Regardless of the constitutionality of specific regulations and laws that have made it into existence, members of society must occasionally reexamine, and when necessary, retest those actions in a legal theatre. This is especially true when the morality and ethicality of such actions come into question and threaten the citizens the laws have allegedly been designed to protect.
Whether something being handed down by a governing body in America is constitutionally sound or not is decided by a group of justices (human beings) who don’t always agree with one another.
Regarding the question of whether or not mandatory vaccination laws are constitutionally protected (Jacobson v. Massachusetts), it’s important to remember the legal decision that answered this question was based in part on information that was available about vaccine products 115 years ago. The ruling justices had zero scientific information to examine that spoke of the public dangers vaccine products posed to society. If such information was available at the time, there undoubtedly would have been a different decision handed down.
Whenever there is a risk of harm to the public stemming from a medical procedure or product, patients must be offered the option of refusing the service. Patients must sign a form that serves as evidence they have consented to the medical products or services. This practice in medical care is referred to as informed consent and is the law.
Informed Consent Defined
Although the specific definition of informed consent may vary from state to state, it basically means that a physician (or other medical provider) must tell a patient all of the potential benefits, risks, and alternatives involved in any surgical procedure, medical procedure, or other course of treatment, and must obtain the patient’s written consent to proceed.
The problem with mandatory vaccination laws is that they violate the basic laws of informed consent. When there is a health risk posed to the public from a medical product, the people must be offered a choice about whether or not they want to receive the product. This law is reasonable, ethical, and morally sound. Any rational-thinking person would agree with the legal process of informed consent.
It does not matter if you are a pro-vaxxer, anti-vaxxer, or something in between; common sense would dictate that where there’s a medical risk, there must be a choice and an option to refuse the medicinal product or service.
There is no doubt whatsoever, according to modern science, that a level of risk is associated with all vaccine products. This is undeniable because every vaccine product in existence is accompanied by a product insert that clearly informs doctors and patients of the risks associated with said products. I challenge anyone to find a medical vaccine that is currently in the marketplace that has zero risks associated with that product.
Because all vaccines come with some level of risk, patients must be given the right to refuse them. Anything less than a person being given the choice to refuse a dangerous medical product is unreasonable, unethical, and beneath the law, otherwise known as informed consent.
The question of whether or not mandatory vaccinations are constitutionally protected must be reexamined again by the SCOTUS. This time the justices must take into consideration the inherent public health risks associated with vaccine science.
Any doctor, healthcare professional, or agent of the government who administers a medical product or service to another human being without first gaining the patient’s written informed consent would be guilty of committing medical rape, which is a crime against humanity.