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

Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's demand to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

During a Senate hearing for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation as health secretary, Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse made some extraordinary demands of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., see this X clip:

Here’s a transcript of that clip, where Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse demands of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. two things:

• One, if you want to move from advocacy to public responsibility, Americans are going to need to hear a clear and trustworthy recantation of what you have said on vaccinations, including a promise from you NEVER to say vaccines aren't medically safe, when they in fact are; and

• making it indisputably clear that you support MANDATORY vaccinations against diseases where that will keep people safe.

Mandatory vaccination…a mandated medical intervention…in a supposed ‘free country’…

The question is - are mandatory vaccinations moral, ethical, and legal?

I cannot see how they can be, as they violate the doctor's/practitioner's moral, ethical, and legal obligation to obtain valid consent for the medical intervention of vaccination, which cannot be obtained from people who are being coerced and mandated to comply.

Where has this idea for mandatory vaccination come from?

It’s my understanding that Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S, 11 (1905) is the case that is used to support mandatory vaccination in the United States, the gist of the judgement being:

"A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health."

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

The Jacobson v Massachusetts case was argued on December 6, 1904 and decided on February 20, 1905.

But there are subsequent cases that same year, 1905, which set precedents that should protect people from physical interference by practitioners without valid consent, i.e. Mohr v. Williams, and Pratt v. Davis, and subsequent cases Rolater v. Strain (1913), and Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital (1914).

These historical cases are referenced in this article by Lydia A. Bazzano et al, A Modern History of Informed Consent and the Role of Key Information, which notes these cases "established and solidified the principle of patient autonomy that ultimately formed the basis of the requirement for informed consent in medicine and research".

Some key quotes:

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.)

In the Salgo v Leland Stanford Jr University Board of Trustees case, I understand the Stanford University Hospital ultimately bore financial liability.

Bazzano et al go on to discuss the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report, focussing on “obtaining informed consent for research from human subjects…”

This historical information re 'informed consent' in the U.S. makes it clear doctors/practitioners have an obligation to inform their patients and obtain valid consent for any intervention.

In the case of vaccination, this is a medical intervention which is often pressed upon mass populations under coercion or a mandate, where there is a penalty for refusal to submit to vaccination, e.g. being denied livelihood, and participation in society, as happened during the 'Covid' debacle.

Why haven't vaccination mandates been successfully challenged by using the doctor's/practitioner's obligation to obtain valid consent for the physical interference upon an individual, when obviously someone appearing before a doctor/practitioner under the duress of coercion or a mandate is not able to freely give consent?

Obviously valid consent cannot be obtained under these coercive and mandatory circumstances - why haven't the doctors/practitioners themselves called this out? And the legal profession?

Comments are welcome - please stay on the topic of the article.