Posted on 10/14/2021 11:38:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
Forcing children who are not at risk for serious illness to receive a vaccine of marginal benefit undermines confidence in legitimate vaccine programs.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate for schoolchildren age 12 and older — and other similar mandates popping up around the country — raises the question: For a patient population that predominately suffers only mild to no symptoms, is it ethical to coerce them to receive a vaccine that provides little benefit and causes rare but significant side effects?
During the early 1950s, my parents waited and hoped that polio, an incurable, highly infectious disease that primarily afflicts children under five years of age, would not strike. The transmission of the disease was poorly understood and one in 200 patients suffered irreversible paralysis, with 5-10 percent of that group dying due to involvement of the respiratory muscles.
The availability of the Salk injectable polio vaccine in 1955 and the Sabin oral formulation in 1963 was hailed as a godsend. Vaccine development spanned years with 1.6 million children involved in clinical trials before full-scale implementation. The administration of these vaccines garnered widespread public support, with caseloads dropping precipitously. The disease has been eradicated in the United States since 1979.
The acclaimed polio vaccination program illustrates that health interventions are most successful when implemented with full public trust and directed against lethal or severely debilitating diseases for which the immunization provides longstanding protection. This example furnishes a stark contrast to compulsory COVID-19 vaccinations of children and adolescents, who rarely suffer adverse effects from that disease.
Yet, earlier this month, Newsom announced COVID-19 vaccine requirements for all students 12 and older who attend school in person, expected to go into effect next year after approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Full FDA approval for even younger students, Newsom has said, will expand the requirements further. Recently, Pfizer submitted an application to U.S. drug regulators to authorize the use of the vaccine in children in the kindergarten and grade school cohort.
The 1931 German Guidelines on Human Experimentation, a predecessor to the Nuremberg Code that was woefully disregarded when the Nazis came to power in Germany only a few years later, demonstrate the need for caution in providing “innovative therapy.”
Point 5 specifies that “Innovative therapy may be carried out only after the subject or his legal representative has unambiguously consented to the procedure. … Where consent is refused, innovative therapy may be initiated only if it constitutes an urgent procedure to preserve life or prevent serious damage to health.” Point 6 speaks directly to interventions applied to minors: “The question of whether to use innovative therapy must be examined with particular care where the subject is a child or a person under 18 years of age.”
In the 1970s, revelations about the atrocious Tuskegee syphilis experiments led to the Belmont Report. The Belmont Report highlighted the concepts of “respect for persons,” which underscored a patient’s bodily autonomy and a medical researcher’s need to obtain informed consent. These stipulations are supported in the Declaration of Geneva Physician’s Oath that “The health and well-being of my patient will be my first consideration” and in that statement’s subsequent inclusion in the Helsinki Declaration.
The World Health Organization (WHO) establishes parameters by which vaccinations can be administered to minor patients. “Informed consent is required for medical interventions, including vaccination,” it says, noting consent may only be waived under narrowly defined circumstances such as life-threatening emergencies.
Since a child or adolescent cannot provide consent to vaccination, it is normally required from a parent or legal guardian. However, the WHO adds a caveat that the “public good” or the goal of disease elimination may supersede consent, justify medical mandates, and deny noncompliant children access to school.
According to a report from BBC News, there is a 1 in 500,000 absolute risk of death in children due to COVID-19, and those rare cases generally involve children with chronic medical conditions, including obesity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) likewise confirm that the vast majority of children and adolescents, again excepting for severe preexisting medical conditions, are spared COVID-19-induced morbidity and mortality.
COVID-19 vaccines do not confer sterilizing immunity, and the salutary effects are short-lived, since coronavirus vaccine-induced antibody titers wane rapidly. The vaccine minimally mitigates transmission, and even that mitigation declines rapidly three months after the second shot. Viral spike protein antigens constantly mutate, rendering vaccines less effective and necessitating booster shots. Natural immunity, on the other hand, confers prolonged protection as a result of an immunologic response to multiple viral antigens.
The risks of administering a vaccine early in its development are uncertain. There has been insufficient time to assess the long-term safety profile of these injections. If the vaccine proves to be unsafe, a 60-year-old man will deal with the ramifications for an average of 15 years, but a five-year-old may be exposed for 70 or 80 years unless the vaccine is discovered to have more serious consequences that affect longevity.
Depriving a child of his education for not receiving a vaccine of uncertain benefit is the essence of coercion. The threat violates the WHO suggestion that such measures can only be employed to eliminate disease — an impossible goal with current vaccine technology.
A physician’s utmost duty is premum non nocere — first, do no harm. Forcing patients who are not at risk for serious illness to receive a vaccine of marginal benefit undermines public confidence in legitimate vaccine programs and the medical establishment. Mandatory, nonselective COVID-19 vaccination of children is a line in the sand, and too many politicians and government agencies have stepped over it.
The interests of The Party far outweigh ethics.
What happened to all the vocal anti-vaxxers from years ago did they die from getting this fake vaccine
replace “kids” with “any person” and they’ve got it 100% right
Serious ethical, moral, and most likely medical issue to FORCE anyone to get the covid vaccine…
absolutely.
Don’t stab our kids!
Even if the spouses and adult son are in total quarentine?
criminal
It’s very criminal
The Dems would love to take children away at birth , wait sounds like a movie
One Month After Biden Announced his Federal Vaccine Mandate!
It Still Has Not Been Formally Issued!
Trending Politics ^ | October 10, 202 | Kyle Becker
One month after the Biden administration announced a draconian federal vaccine mandate that impacted an estimated 100 million Americans and led to mass firings of public servants, teachers, and medical workers, the federal regulation still has not been formally issued.
The Federalist reported . . in a post on Thursday that noted, “Joe Biden’s Vaccine Mandate Doesn’t Exist. It’s Just A Press Release”:
Biden’s so-called vaccine mandate doesn’t exist — at least, not yet. So far, all we have is his press conference. No such rule even claiming to be legally binding has been issued yet.
That’s why nearly two dozen Republican attorneys general who have publicly voiced their opposition to the clearly unconstitutional and illegal mandate haven’t yet filed suit against it, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General confirmed for me. There is no mandate to haul into court. And that may be part of the plan.
According to several sources, so far it appears no such mandate has been sent to the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs yet for approval. The White House, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Department of Labor haven’t released any official guidance for the alleged mandate.
There is no executive order. There’s nothing but press statements.
Despite what you may have been . . . led to believe by the media, . . . press releases/statements have exactly zero legal authority.
“There is nothing there yet that gives employers any mandate,” Stephanie McFarland, spokeswoman for the Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Administration, told The Federalist’s Joy Pullman on Oct. 6. “The president made an announcement on this asking OSHA to do it, but we’ve not yet seen anything come from it yet,”. When the state agency gets any further information, she said, they’ll review it.”
(Excerpt) Read more at trendingpolitics.com …
(Lockdowns will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in modern history! Cui bono?)
Just KIDS?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.