Mandatory Vaccination is Unethical
19 Dec 2019
From Amanda Vickers, Social Credit Deputy Leader
Compulsion is being proposed as the way to address factors affecting vaccination uptake: low confidence, complacency and convenience.
It is not.
The impact of mandates in European countries was assessed by the European Union-funded Asset project, which found no clear link between vaccine uptake and mandatory vaccination.
Ethically, various codes have been designed to protect us from unconsented medical intervention. The Nuremberg Code set out to ensure no person had medical procedures performed without explicit consent. With the formation of the United Nations came the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New Zealand has a Bill of Rights (1990).
These all seek to protect against any "greater majority" who would trample our individual rights. However, they are only as strong as the will of citizens to uphold them.
The premise of the "greater good" is being used to support arguments for forced medication of the population. In terms of protecting the very young, the very old and the very sick, it is important these groups are sufficiently well cared for, so as not to contract any illness, regardless of whether the rest of the population has been vaccinated or not.
The question that needs addressing is whether it is for our "greater good" to have the government make our "informed consent" decisions for us, and then force those decisions upon us. Our forefathers would likely not have seen this imposition as a "greater good".
Mandatory vaccination would entail the state appointing itself authority over the most sacrosanct – our bodily sovereignty. Doing so gives it the ability to deliver, to whom it wants, directly into our bodies, what it wants, in any amount it wants, whenever it wants.
Of course, the delivery of vaccine-mandate legislation would never really look as draconian and authoritarian as that. It would instead be introduced gradually, but nonetheless by coercion.
Make no mistake, coercion is a mandate to those with little choice, just as a pig with lipstick is still a pig. Unavoidable coercion soon expands to affect everyone, and everything – the ability to go to school, or to travel and work.
Where would that end? Would doctors be required to administer medication against the will of their patients? How would that fit with their Hippocratic oath? Would police be obliged to undertake enforcement? How would that fit morally with them?
Where do Māori stand? The second article of the Treaty of Waitangi guarantees them chieftainship over their taonga. Did it intend that Māori cede sovereignty over their bodies?
Upholding our freedoms, and the application of our hard-won protections, should be an overriding principle in our proud nation.
The National Party is discussing, and ACT is proposing, vaccine coercion, while Winston Peters has personally endorsed mandatory vaccination.
This is not just any old election policy announcement. This is New Zealand political parties seeking to remove our personal rights to bodily autonomy. It should be big news.
Thankfully, Labour has had the sense to stand firm against mandates – for now.
Social Credit has an overriding principle in its constitution – that the individual is more important than the state – and it opposes any form of political authoritarianism, including mandatory vaccinations.
Preserving personal liberty should be the most important mandate evoked – even when seeking to maintain the public's health in the 21st century.
Our history shows New Zealanders stand, among other things, for fairness, for freedom and for respect.
Let's keep it that way.
Because no matter what our view of vaccinations, these principles should be our overriding consideration.