The proportionality principle is the wrong ethical standard for vaccine mandates

Agreement 
I do not Agree
Body 

The article does not engage with the objections (published in this journal and also in response to the previous article by the same lead author) to the applicability of the ‘proportionality principle’ to ethical judgment when the considered intervention violates the right to life and discriminates on the basis of healthy, innate biological characteristics of the human race. In particular, the proportionality principle is irrelevant to coercive policies (mandates) if the associated procedure is known to kill a small percentage of people and therefore amounts to a mandated killing of a minority for the benefit of the majority. The right to life cannot be taken away in the interests of others, even if the majority would greatly benefit from the killing, without negating the very concept of human rights: if being born human is not a guarantee of the right to life, then there is no right to life. On this view, vaccination mandates can no longer be considered healthcare but democide.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107026

https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/5/e008684.responses#fundamental-values-cann…

No competing Interests 
Yes
The following competing Interests 
Electronic Publication Date 
Tuesday, December 6, 2022 – 00:13
Workflow State 
Released
Contributors 
[email protected]/EthicistNot affiliated
Full Title 

The proportionality principle is the wrong ethical standard for vaccine mandates

Check this box if you would like your letter to appear anonymously: 

This post was originally published on this site

Leave a Reply

error: Content is protected !!
Open chat
WhatsApp Now