Introduction: Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Vaccine Mandates
In this article, we delve into the concerns raised by Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, a prominent medical ethicist and academic physician, regarding vaccine mandates and their potential violation of the principles of informed consent. Dr. Kheriaty highlights the ethical implications of coercion and severe penalties associated with vaccine mandates, emphasizing the importance of preserving true informed consent. Furthermore, he questions the validity of the argument for vaccine mandates based on social solidarity when vaccines may not prevent infection or transmission.
Table of contents
- Introduction: Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Vaccine Mandates
- The Principle of Informed Consent and Vaccine Mandates
- Discrepancies in Vaccine Mandates: Soldiers vs. Students
- Vaccines and Immunity: Natural vs. Post-Infectious
- Dr. Kheriaty’s Lawsuit and its Implications
- Judicial Scrutiny and Misapplication of Precedents
- Challenging AB2098: Doctors’ Free Speech Rights
- The Shift in Hippocratic Norms and Medical Ethics
- The Importance of Upholding Medical Ethics
- Conclusion
- Related Articles:
The Principle of Informed Consent and Vaccine Mandates
Dr. Kheriaty argues that vaccine mandates contradict the fundamental principle of informed consent, deeply rooted in medical ethics since the Nuremberg Code. He highlights that genuine informed consent cannot be obtained when individuals are coerced or threatened with severe penalties, such as job loss or exclusion from educational institutions. Additionally, the argument for vaccine mandates based on social solidarity becomes questionable when the vaccines themselves do not guarantee the prevention of infection or transmission.
Discrepancies in Vaccine Mandates: Soldiers vs. Students
Examining the discrepancies in vaccine mandates, Dr. Kheriaty draws attention to the contrasting rights granted to military soldiers and students at the University of California (UC). He reveals that soldiers initially had more autonomy regarding vaccines compared to students. He asserts that the risks associated with COVID-19 and the vaccines, particularly in children, were not adequately disclosed during the vaccine rollout, leading to issues with informed consent. Dr. Kheriaty also mentions his lawsuit challenging vaccine mandates under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
Vaccines and Immunity: Natural vs. Post-Infectious
Dr. Kheriaty discusses the concept of vaccines and highlights instances where immunity from vaccines may not necessarily surpass natural immunity acquired after infection. He shares his personal experience at the University of California Irvine, where he was fired after refusing vaccination and requesting a medical exemption. Dr. Kheriaty’s lawsuit had the potential to impact all employees and students at the University of California, seeking to establish a constitutional right to refuse vaccines and set a precedent in federal court. However, the court ruled in favor of the university, citing a legal technicality that prevented him from presenting evidence supporting the significance of natural immunity.
Dr. Kheriaty’s Lawsuit and its Implications
Dr. Kheriaty draws attention to a historical Supreme Court case, Buck v. Bell, in the 1920s, which permitted involuntary sterilization of individuals with mental incapacity or disabilities. The court justified its decision by referring to the Jacobson precedent, which allowed for forced vaccination. Dr. Kheriaty argues that the court failed to establish meaningful limits to the Jacobson precedent and warns against misapplication in similar contexts. He calls for judicial scrutiny, urging the consideration of scientific evidence and a balanced assessment of potential benefits and harms.
Judicial Scrutiny and Misapplication of Precedents
Dr. Kheriaty emphasizes the importance of judicial scrutiny when it comes to vaccine mandates and other public health measures. He highlights the need for comprehensive evaluation, taking into account scientific evidence and potential consequences. Dr. Kheriaty shares his personal experience of being let go from the University of California and how he continued his work in bioethics through private practice and collaborations with independent think tanks and research institutes.
Challenging AB2098: Doctors’ Free Speech Rights
Dr. Kheriaty discusses a recent California law, AB2098, which enables the Medical Board of California to discipline physicians who provide information contradicting the government’s preferred public health measures. He, along with five other physicians, has filed a lawsuit challenging this law on constitutional grounds, arguing that it violates doctors’ First Amendment rights to free speech and the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Dr. Kheriaty expresses concern about the impact of this law on the doctor-patient relationship, hindering patients’ ability to obtain accurate answers to their questions and limiting treatment options outside of government guidelines.
The Shift in Hippocratic Norms and Medical Ethics
Dr. Kheriaty explores the shift in Hippocratic norms, which traditionally prioritized patient well-being, towards a focus on the health of society as a whole. He illustrates this shift with examples from Germany in the 1920s, highlighting the potential corruption of medicine under a regime that prioritizes the state’s agenda. Dr. Kheriaty mentions the trend of medical schools altering or creating their own oaths, emphasizing the significance and timelessness of the original Hippocratic Oath.
The Importance of Upholding Medical Ethics
Underscoring the significance of upholding medical ethics, Dr. Kheriaty emphasizes the principles of free and informed consent, along with the essential role of open dialogue and dissenting opinions in medicine. He warns against the harms of censorship, which can impede medical and scientific progress. Dr. Kheriaty briefly introduces his book, “The New Abnormal,” which explores the rise of the biomedical security state and its potential threats to individual freedoms.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, a distinguished medical ethicist, raises valid concerns regarding vaccine mandates and their impact on informed consent. He advocates for the preservation of individual rights and the upholding of medical ethics. Dr. Kheriaty’s insights shed light on the ethical complexities surrounding vaccine mandates and call for a balanced approach that respects individual autonomy and promotes open dialogue within the medical field.
FAQs
Vaccine mandates can raise ethical concerns, particularly when they undermine the principles of informed consent and individual autonomy. Dr. Kheriaty argues that coercion and severe penalties associated with mandates can hinder true informed consent.
Dr. Kheriaty’s lawsuit challenging vaccine mandates under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause was ruled against by the court. The ruling was based on a legal technicality that prevented the presentation of evidence supporting the significance of natural immunity.
AB2098, a California law, enables the medical board to discipline physicians who provide information contradicting the government’s preferredpublic health measures. Dr. Kheriaty and other physicians have filed a lawsuit challenging this law, arguing that it violates doctors’ First Amendment rights to free speech and the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Preserving medical ethics, including principles like informed consent and open dialogue, is crucial in vaccine mandates to ensure that individual rights are respected and that decisions are made based on accurate information and ethical considerations.
The shift in Hippocratic norms towards prioritizing the health of society as a whole can lead to potential ethical dilemmas and the corruption of medicine. Dr. Kheriaty emphasizes the importance of maintaining the principles outlined in the original Hippocratic Oath.
Related Articles:
Discover more from Randy Bock MD PC
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
