PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Steinhoff, Uwe TI - The Case against compulsory vaccination: the failed arguments from risk imposition, tax evasion, ‘social liberty’, and the priority of life AID - 10.1136/jme-2024-110236 DP - 2024 Oct 29 TA - Journal of Medical Ethics PG - jme-2024-110236 4099 - http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2024/10/28/jme-2024-110236.short 4100 - http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2024/10/28/jme-2024-110236.full AB - Arguments for mandatory or compulsory vaccination must justify the coercive infringement of bodily integrity via the injection of chemicals that permanently affect a body’s inner constitution. Four arguments are considered. The allegedly libertarian argument declares unvaccinated persons a threat; accordingly, vaccination could take the form of justifiable defence of self and others. This argument conflates material and statistical threats. The harsh coercive measures permissible in defence against the former are not permissible in prevention of the latter. The argument from tax evasion claims that people can be permissibly coerced into bearing their fair financial burdens of community life and likens this to sharing burdens in the face of a viral threat. The argument fails to demonstrate that vaccination would be fair, permissible in spite of potential lethal side-effects, and sufficiently similar to taxation despite the categorical difference between temporary deprivation of money and permanent deprivation of one’s original inner bodily constitution. The argument from ‘social liberty’ claims that the loss of freedom due to mandatory vaccination is only apparent, namely outweighed by corresponding gains in freedom. This argument conflates freedom as the absence of coercion with freedom as the presence of options for action. It fails to give the former its due weight and to demonstrate that persons may be coerced into increasing the options of others. The argument from the priority of life elevates the protection of life to an absolute value. This is unwarranted and leads to counterintuitive implications. Without better arguments, mandatory vaccination must be rejected.No data are available.