Jacobson v. Massachusetts...and the obligation for valid consent for vaccination...

In my previous post referencing U.S. Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s demand of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that he ‘promise to support MANDATORY vaccinations’, I referred to the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), noting:

It seems the Jacobson v. Massachusetts judgement opened up the floodgates to U.S. legislatures imposing vaccine mandates in response to all manner of diseases.

But it seems this judgement took no account of the vaccinating doctor's/practitioner's moral, ethical, and legal obligation to obtain valid consent for the medical intervention.

See:

"...promise...you support MANDATORY vaccinations..."

I don’t profess to have any specific legal expertise, but people under threat of mandatory vaccination are entitled to undertake a layperson’s investigation of the history of this threat, so let’s have a look at Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905)…

Quoting the syllabus of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), which states:

“It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health.”

This is an interesting statement to think about...

Who in the legislature determined “whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health”?

This must be considered now in modern scenarios, with States responding to purported disease threats, e.g. the deliberately manufactured crisis ‘COVID-19’, with fear-mongering mis/disinformation to coerce people to submit to vaccination.

Who ARE these people in the legislatures who ‘enact compulsory vaccination laws’ - on what basis do they take this action, and do they have any conflicts of interest?

Again quoting the syllabus of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905):

“the board of health of a city or town if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars.” (My emphasis.)

So it seems in this instance, even when a ‘killer disease’ was in town, people could refuse vaccination by paying five dollars...

That doesn’t seem to be too much to pay to avoid vaccination - but people should not be in this position of facing a penalty if they refuse a medical intervention, whether it be five dollars...or losing their livelihood and participation in society...as happened in ‘Covid’ times under vaccination mandates.

Consider this from the syllabus of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905):

“Subsequently, the Board adopted an additional regulation empowering a named physician to enforce the vaccination of persons as directed by the Board at its special meeting of February 27.” (My emphasis.)

A ‘named physician’ was ‘empowered’ to “enforce the vaccination of persons as directed by the Board…”.

How could a physician collaborate with coercing people to submit to a medical intervention they did not want?

While the penalty for refusing vaccination seems small, five dollars at the time, this still interfered with an individual’s personal wishes, seeking to pressure, coerce and manipulate them to comply with the vaccination.

As outlined in my previous post, after the Jacobson case in 1905, other cases on medical issues affirmed personal autonomy in the United States, e.g.

Pratt v. Davis: “...under a free government at least, the citizen's first and greatest right, which underlies all others—the right to the inviolability of his person, in other words, his right to himself is the subject of universal acquiescence, and this right necessarily forbids a physician or surgeon, however skillful or eminent, who has been asked to examine, diagnose, advise and prescribe (which are at least the necessary first steps in treatment and care) to violate without permission the bodily integrity of his patient.” (My emphasis.)

Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital: Quoting Bazzano et al: “The 1914 case of Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital was the final landmark case that legally established the principle of patient autonomy. The plaintiff, Mary Schloendorff, explicitly stated her wish not to undergo surgery yet was subjected to hysterectomy to remove a fibroid tumor without her consent. In the ruling, Judge Benjamin Cardozo wrote, “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages; except in cases of emergency where the patient is unconscious, and where it is necessary to operate before consent can be obtained.”” (My emphasis.)

(Ironically Mary Schloendorff lost her case it seems because she sued the hospital rather than the physicians...)

Other interesting info in Bazzano et al includes reference to the 1957 case Salgo v Leland Stanford Jr University Board of Trustees: “In a California appellate court decision, the court directed that each physician must exercise practical insight in completely divulging potential procedural hazards and that physicians are liable for failing to disclose information that a patient would need to make an informed decision regarding medical procedures. This legal ruling was the first to identify and focus attention on the need to provide the patient with information about the potential benefits and the risks of any medical procedure”. (My emphasis.)

Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) failed to acknowledge the duty of the physician to obtain valid consent

Given the cases after Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), which affirm an individual’s personal autonomy and their freedom to make an informed decision about a medical intervention, i.e. that physicians must obtain valid consent for a medical intervention (and vaccinations are medical interventions), it’s clear that Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) failed to acknowledge the duty of the physician to obtain valid consent for vaccination, and this must be highlighted now.

Physicians/practitioners are not obtaining valid consent when they vaccinate individuals who are under duress to submit to vaccination, e.g. under threat of penalty, whether that be a five dollar fine...or loss of livelihood and participation in society, as happened during the ‘Covid’ debacle.

Consider these questions:

- Are vaccination mandates imposed by legislatures lawful, as they conflict with physicians’/practitioners’ obligation to obtain valid consent for vaccination?

- Are physicians/practitioners indemnified if they fail to obtain valid consent for vaccination?