Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Barry Kissane's avatar

I wonder if they read their own sign, observing that vaccines are mandatory and have to be consented to? The semantics of this is horrific ... observing that it is mandatory to consent. Huh??

At present, in Australia, there is a spirited debate about the meaning of 'consent' in the context of consent to engage in sexual activity, and children are even being taught about this in schools - quite appropriately of course. The essence of consent is that a person freely acquiesces to something, in a context in which they have a choice to do so or not. When people are not free to choose, it is factually incorrect to suggest that consent is mandatory. What is mandatory in such a context is compliance - which is not the same thing as consent.

Of course, in the case of vaccination, consent is only acceptable when it is *informed* consent, when known risks and benefits are clearly explained, and undetermined risks are at least described (e.g., "We really don't have research yet on the long-term effects of the vaccinations, nor of their effects on your pregnancy/fertility/... as these things have not yet been studied"; but that is another matter. A clear implication of the sign, too, is that it would be improper to engage in an extended discussion with the doctor (or whoever was doing the vaccinating), as this would be seen as rendering the vaccination process less efficient, especially if the discussion did not result in 'consent' being attained. Ironically, however, people in Australia were regularly and publicly advised to discuss the matter with their (busy) doctor, rather than to seek alternative advice.

Orwellian, at least.

Expand full comment
Bill Rice, Jr.'s avatar

Take your coercion and like it!

Expand full comment
54 more comments...

No posts