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 contentsIntroduction: Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Vaccine MandatesThe Principle of Informed Consent and Vaccine MandatesDiscrepancies in Vaccine Mandates: Soldiers vs. StudentsVaccines and Immunity: Natural vs. Post-InfectiousDr. Kheriaty’s Lawsuit and its ImplicationsJudicial Scrutiny and Misapplication of PrecedentsChallenging AB2098: Doctors’ Free Speech RightsThe Shift in Hippocratic Norms and Medical EthicsThe Importance of Upholding Medical EthicsConclusionRelated 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.