In 2020, we find ourselves living in a world where some of our fellow humans are not only rationalizing, but demanding human sacrifice. The question is not so much how we got here, but what does it say about our moral malleability and basic humanity.
On June 26, 2020 the New England Journal of Medicine published an article entitled Ensuring Uptake of Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. The piece serves as a legal blueprint to guide states to increase uptake of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine when it becomes available, guidance to when a mandate of the vaccine may be appropriate, and strategies to use to sidestep legal challenges in the event of a vaccine mandate.
As a person who lost the ability to read, write, speak and count in 2014 due to a series of medically induced injuries, including injury from two vaccines, the piece read not so much like the prequel to a dystopian novel, but like a direct threat to my life.
Included among the criterion the authors suggest as a trigger for state vaccine mandates is Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendation of the vaccine for populations including the elderly, health care professionals working in high-risk or with high-risk patients, and persons with certain underlying medical conditions. I strongly suspect that I’d qualify as a person with certain underlying medical conditions.
An unusual characteristic of the paper is its recognition that vaccine injury is real and will inevitably affect some people who receive the vaccine. One of the criteria that the authors outline as a prerequisite for a vaccine mandate is that, “a generous compensation program for people who have serious vaccine side effects should be a centerpiece of these efforts.”
Do I, as a person who is under potential threat of state mandated vaccination feel assured by a promise of generous compensation should I lose my ability to read, speak and perform the functions of daily living independently again? No, I do not. No amount of money would be fair compensation for a loss so far reaching as severe vaccine injury. Severe vaccine injury is a loss that destroys not only the life of the injured individual, but transforms the lives of that person’s family and community. My spouse would lose a partner again, my community would lose a person who grows and shares a quarter acre of organically grown produce, my friends would lose a loyal support. And I, as a shell of my former self, would require valuable productive energy and resources from a team of other human beings to maintain an existence that no longer nourishes me or anyone whose life intersects with mine.
Let me rephrase and condense the meaning of the criterion for vaccine mandates that I just discussed: Under certain circumstances, states should mandate a medical procedure that we know will destroy the lives of some people. Policymakers can help people buy into these mandates by promising to pay the people who are disabled by the vaccine. The authors recognize severe injury as potential outcome of compulsory vaccination, but they don’t address death, which is another known outcome that has been compensated under other vaccine injury compensation programs.
Consider the ethical gravity of this concept. We as a society have no ethical consensus on the morality of capital punishment, where the state levies the penalty of death against those convicted of the most heinous crimes and severe felonies. Yet here we have a proposal to force a citizen who is guilty of nothing more than having a certain occupation or medical condition to submit to a medical procedure that could profoundly alter or even end that person’s life. The most generous compensation program in the world could not erase the sheer horror of this proposal of state mandated human sacrifice.
The authors’ suggestions for potential consequences for those who refuse to be sacrificed on the vaccine alter? Suspension of employment and stay at home orders. If I do not acquiesce to mandated vaccination, knowing full well that that I may be severely injured again, or perhaps even killed, then I may have my rights to earn a living and participate in society revoked. I can almost hear Josef Mengele cheering from his grave.
The authors of this article, and many vaccine mandate supporters, have arrived at a place where they condone state mandated sacrifice of innocent lives in order to allegedly save other lives. The only similar mandate to potentially lose one’s life in purported service to society in the US is the Selective Service System. It is notable however, that the Selective Service System, unlike this blueprint for vaccine mandates, allows for exemptions based on Conscientious Objector status. It’s high time to ask where the promise of “greater good”, or any good at all can be found in a society that transforms its declaration of intent to protect the most vulnerable into a threat to injure or execute some of the most vulnerable.
We collectively concede all basic respect for human life by condoning state mandated execution of innocents for any reason. Once we make a moral concession of this caliber, what positive aspects of surviving humanity do we even hope to preserve?
About the author:
Twilah Hiari is a recovering patient with a B.A. in Philosophy. She's the author of Regression, a memoir that chronicles her medically induced descent from undiagnosed Asperger's to more severe autism. She's an impassioned medical freedom advocate who supports holistic, non-coercive recovery methods for neuroimmunological conditions such as autism, PANS/PANDAS, and autoimmune encephalitis.