Dr. Julie Ponesse, professor of ethics at the University of Western Ontario discusses why she believes compulsory vaccination is wrong.
She is now an ex-professor since the University of Western Ontario fired her for taking, you guessed it, an ethical stand.
She should get vaccinated
@John Payzant: “She should get vaccinated”
That could indeed be the case. But even if the answer to the question “Should I get vaccinated?” is Yes, it does not automatically follow that the answer to the question “Is it right for my employer to demand proof that I’ve been vaccinated on pain of termination?” is also Yes.
Those of us who are vaccinated should be thinking carefully about the second question. Just because I can tick that box in exchange for increased convenience in my life doesn’t necessarily mean that I should.
The May 19 joint statement by the Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Privacy Commissioners of Canada has set a bar for the legality of vaccine passports that is very high indeed (https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/speeches/2021/s-d_20210519/).
Among the various conditions set by the Privacy Commissioners is the statement that encroachment on civil liberties that vaccine passports represent could only be justified if they were “likely to be effective at achieving each of their defined purposes at the outset and [if they continued] to be effective throughout their lifecycle.” The Privacy Commissioner summarizes the “defined purposes” as follows: “Proponents justify this measure based on the idea that vaccinated individuals have a significantly decreased risk of becoming infected and a decreased risk of infecting others.”
But as Health Canada clearly stated back in March, the early trials of the various vaccines’ effectiveness did not investigate whether people who received them would have “a significantly decreased risk” of becoming infected themselves or of infecting others. They only examined whether vaccinated people were less at risk of developing the symptoms of COVID-19 if they were exposed to the virus. It was hoped that the risk of infection and transmission would indeed prove to be reduced. The most recent research, however, is revealing that vaccinated people are able to transmit COVID-19 to others just as easily as unvaccinated people. Proof of vaccination is not proof that you’re “safe to be around.”
Why, then, should this be made a condition of entrance to a public venue like a university classroom? It doesn’t “protect” anyone from me. It’s simply a measure to coerce more of the population into being vaccinated.
That may or may not be a worthy public policy goal. But this means of achieving it is mendacious and should be rejected by all of us, whatever the opinion polls say.
When you call it coercion, of course you’ve made it sound like that’s a bad thing.
Is it coercive that your child get vaccinated for measles before attending school?
How about seat belts? Are they coercive?
Drunk driving laws?
Speed limits?
What about reporting sexually transmitted diseases?
How about doctors having to report domestic violence? Is that coercive?
Is it coercive that I get punished for stealing?
Really, why all of a sudden is the duty not to infect others with a potentially life threatening virus, that already overwhelmed our health system once, considered FORCE?
Just stop it.
You don’t want to follow public health laws, good on you.
Then be a grown up and take the consequences.
@Elizabeth: “Is it coercive that your child get vaccinated for measles before attending school?”
It’s actually not a legal requirement that children be vaccinated for measles before attending school. Parents may register for an exemption instead. Furthermore, a physician or nurse may not inject a child with a vaccine unless the parent or guardian gives free and informed consent on behalf of the child. No consent, no vaccine.
It’s a wise and responsible thing to have one’s children vaccinated against measles. “Anti-vaxxers” haven’t sufficiently appreciated that measles has a hospitalization rate of 75% in an unvaccinated population. That’s why coercion isn’t necessary for measles vaccinations. All that’s necessary is education and common sense. Could it be that that’s also be why Canada already has one of the highest COVID-19 vaccination rates in the world?
You’ve provided no other comparable examples of invasive medical procedures that people can be compelled to undergo against their will by universal fiat. There’s a reason why you couldn’t: there aren’t any. And I defy you to give me an example of legal compulsion to submit to *experimental* medical procedures. (Let’s not forget that COVID-19 vaccines enjoy only interim authorization in Canada.)
As for seat belts, etc., these are red herrings. I’m all for them, and I’m all for others using them too. But I also don’t think that other drivers should have to upload a “seatbelt confirmation notification” to the government before their keys will turn in the ignition.
You have claimed that I reject enforcement of “the duty not to infect others with a potentially life threatening virus.” Read my comment again and notice that my concerns arise precisely from emerging scientific literature that shows that being vaccinated does *not* reliably prevent me from “infecting others.”
If vaccines do not achieve that end, it follows—and this is not my opinion but the published judgement of every governmental Privacy Commissioner in the country—that compelling people to disclose their vaccination status is “an encroachment on civil liberties” that cannot be justified as “necessary, effective, or proportionate.”
The Chief Science Advisor of Canada made comparable caveats in a paper on “Vaccine Certificates” dated March 21, 2021: https://science.gc.ca/eic/site/063.nsf/eng/h_98229.html.
Perhaps you’d answer me this: Is any law automatically “just” as soon as it’s enacted by a legislature? Can you imagine a “public health law” that you would refuse to comply with? How would you justify your refusal? I’m sincerely interested in your answers. It’s impossible even to have an argument unless the disputants have some shared premises between them!
For the record, I myself am “fully vaccinated.” No coercion required. But in the absence of demonstrable necessity, that information should stay between me and my doctor.
I’m replying here as the format is too narrow farther down the page.
You’re conflating a bunch of new issues with the original “coercion” issue.
First, you may be able to get an exemption for your child, but it has to be for medical, philosophical or religious reasons. This prof doesn’t think she has to give any reasons at all, and that they could even be bad reasons anyway. For her, autonomony trumps all. Never mind who you infect.
And in Ontario, if there is a disease outbreak, the unvaccinated kids get sent home tout de suite. That’s going to be coming to schools for Covid eventually. As it should.
Seriously, we have to educate people about the morality of infecting another person? More like de- program them to stop thinking about themselves.
On seat belts, you may be able to start your car, but the penalties for driving without a belt are harsh, especially if you’re in an accident.
And really, do you let your kids sit in your car without a seat belt? Or do you refuse to start the car until they do? These anti-vaxxers are acting like children and should be treated as such.
“Invasive medical treatment.”? Seriously? Have you had surgery? Cancer treatment? Even a tooth pulled? Those are invasive.
A needle in your arm, a 1.5 second pinch, is the same as a hangnail. More childish whining.
What are you actually defending except the bigotry of low expectations: treat people like whining 3 year olds, here’s the result.
And as I said about defying laws: go ahead.
Then suck it up and take the consequences. Have the courage of your convictions. She should have quit her job. Go work somewhere where she can go without a mask.
Sorry to have wasted your time and mine.
I’m always willing to change my mind when presented with a superior argument. What a shame, therefore, that you were either unwilling or simply unable to answer my questions to establish some shared premises.
Mine is evidently a bigotry of *high* expectations.
She should have got vaccinated or else have resigned, according to an ethical calculus alternative to the one she appears to espouse.
Sorry David, but you are incorrect on this one.
She has a duty not to infect others, full stop.
She seems to think that “making a stand for a bad reason” is ethical.
It isn’t, she isn’t, and she needs to review her hierarchy of values ethical theories.
He autonomous self stops at the point of risk to my health. Then she’s violating community ethics as well as individual ethics.
What’s her defense if she gets Covid, infects 50 people, 2 die, 10 are hospitalized, and 5 have symptoms for the rest of their lives?
And not wearing a mask is just stupid.
“duty to not infect others”?- If you were a good comrade and got your shots you wont have to worry who is standing next to you in the store-take care of yourself – live and let live-(or die) whatever…..
We tend to cope with the current pandemic in our own ways. Some countries have more active COVID-19 cases than others, e.g., yesterday, there were 2776.6 active cases per 100,000 people in the US, 126.4 cases in Australia, 102.8 cases in Canada, etc. The battle against COVID-19 is far from over yet. Lord, have mercy upon us!
Here in BC 75% of the serious cases in intensive care are unvaccinated people. Meanwhile a v. dear friend of mine is possibly dying because his kidney transplant has been unduly delayed for lack of resources. Such examples could be multiplied.
The name is Steve, for your prayers.
Here in BC now 87% of the serious cases in intensive care are unvaccinated people.