If I understand his argument correctly, he’s making an ethical, not a legal argument, and citing Helsinki as evidence of broad acceptance of the notion of requiring informed consent.
That seems a fairly strong case, particularly in light of the relative risks faced by the younger cohorts now being offered (some might say coerced) the vaccine.
What I find engaging about Steve’s discussion is that he’s not at all anti-vax in the traditional sense of the out in left field claims that are often offered. He’s got a cogent argument, and it’s the sort of thing that deserves a substantive response.
Specifically this: in light of the alarming currently reported rates of myocarditis in young adults and teenagers, does the relatively miniscule risk of serious disease justify the current push vaccinate that population?
absalom01 wrote: “That seems a fairly strong case, particularly in light of the relative risks faced by the younger cohorts now being offered (some might say coerced) the vaccine.”
Fine, but no one is being ‘coerced’ into getting the vaccine. In fact, EEOC/OSHA has stated: “Under the ADA, employers may offer an incentive to employees for voluntarily receiving a vaccine administered by the employer or its agent, but the incentive (which includes both rewards and penalties) cannot be “so substantial as to be coercive.”