Forced Medication Debate

A debate rages worldwide over forced medication. Although this is the first debate involving forcing people to sign an informed consent form and take an experimental medication that has never been tested before, similar debates regarding forcing people to take medications or other humanmade substances have arisen throughout history. Thus, an examination of the history of the controversy over forced medication is worthwhile. Research on the various disciplines employed in the debate will be insightful, as well. The language and rhetoric used throughout the debate will cast more insight into the complexities of the controversy. Furthermore, a brief analysis of how differing approaches might affect different audiences will also be helpful. The purpose this examination is to form a clearer understanding of the morality of vaccine mandates by examining the debate through various lenses.

Past Debates and Their Historical Context

As the Twentieth Century commenced, a smallpox epidemic ravaged the state of Massachusetts, inspiring a vaccine mandate for all Boston and Cambridge residents. Henning Jacobson refused to take the shot, and, consequently, suffered a fine of five dollars ($150 according to today’s exchange rate) (Roos). Contending that the vaccine mandate demonstrated an unethical and unlawful governmental overreach of power, Jacobson challenged his fine in every court up to the United States Supreme Court. In Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, the United States Supreme Court held:

The rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand (Roos, ¶ 12).

Consequently, the unvaccinated Jacobson remained five dollars poorer, but the state of Massachusetts survived the smallpox epidemic.

The debate over whether the government can mandate medicine continues as a novel corona virus sweeps across the globe, sickening and killing a small percentage of people it infects. However, a new technology using mRNA was made available in an emergency status for anyone over the age of 65 or who has an underlining condition making the person more vulnerable to the disease. Those who wish to risk this new medicine must sign an informed consent form agreeing to not hold the makers of the medicine liable if anything should go wrong with the experiment. Citing Jacobson, US District Judge David Bunning upheld a hospital’s mandate to take the novel mRNA medicine. The judge stated, “Actual liberty for all of us cannot exist where individual liberties override potential injury done to others” (Feyche, ¶ 6).

How Different Disciplines Approach the Topic

Different disciplines approach topics differently. for example, in the federal case cited above, holding that the novel medicine mandate is justified, Judge Bunning referenced potential injury done to others (Feyche, ¶ 6). The determination as to what extent people who have not received the novel mRNA medicine may harm others falls under the medical discipline. Thus, this judge approaches the debate through a medical discipline. If, on the other hand, the judge had approached the topic from a constitutional discipline, the judge’s reasoning, and therefore, decision would have probably been different. After all, from a Constitutional perspective, one might argue that individual liberty is actual liberty.

In addition, viewing the topic from a historical discipline would produce different arguments. for example, history teaches that the United States is the land of the free and the home of the brave, not the land of the safe and the home of the cowards. Thus, focusing on the same topic from a historical discipline would probably produce different conclusions to the debate. What would the founding fathers say about the government colluding with big business to force their employees to sign an informed consent form and take an experimental medicine to prevent the spread of a virus that kills very few it infects?

Approaching the debate from a sociological discipline would consider other, important consequences to the mandate. for example, if too many medical staff choose a career change over an mRNA shot, then society would be without healthcare staff to address all the other health problems affecting society. Thus, considering the totality of sociological consequences of the mandates would alter the debate.

Language and Evidence

The language used in the debate over medicine mandates is tricky. The distinction between compulsory and forced vaccination is subtle if there is a distinction at all. The government did not force Jacobson to take the medicine. The government only compelled him to do as told or lose some property. Likewise, the mandates to take the mRNA medicine do not force anyone to take it but only compel the people to sign a consent form and take the medicine or choose to accept unemployment and possible homelessness. Thus, the language used in the debate is vague and confusing.

Effects of Various Approaches on Different Audiences.

The debate will affect different audiences in different manners since the diversity of morals and values is so widespread. accordingly, a careful analysis of the morals and values of the audience is worth the time. The people most affected by the mRNA mandate should become the primary point of attention. However, since humanity concerns itself with the well-being of people from all walks of life, everyone is affected by the mandate that forces people to sign an informed consent form and take the experimental medicine or else accept unemployment and lose their means of survival.

Conclusion

The concerns discussed above provide insight into the debate over forced or compelled medication. The discussion on the history of past debates revealed that the courts have upheld compulsory medicines in some circumstances similar to but not exactly the same as the debate over the mandated novel mRNA medicine. The analysis on how the differing disciplines would approach the topic exposed different strategies of presenting the debate. Furthermore, vague language can unduly sway the audience toward one side or another. Finally, the morals and values of the people will alter the way the presentation of the evidence.

Works Cited

Feyche, Marie, Federal judge upholds hospital’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, 2021, www.jurist.org/news/2021/09/federal-judge-upholds-hospitals-covid-19-vaccine-mandate/

Roos, David, When the Supreme Court Ruled a Vaccine Could Be Mandatory, 2021, www.history.com/news/smallpox-vaccine-supreme-court