If a employer mandates the new covid 19 vaccine then....... (Iraq, Reagan, drugs)

[TexasLawyer2000]

Originally Posted by Mad_Jasper

The poster is likely referring to this:

https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard....date-business/

It is ambiguous but appears to discourage the mandatory enforcement of vaccines approved only for EUA.

Politicians love legal ambiguity, as do attorneys. It makes it easier to control and profit from the masses.

Thank you for posting this. This law touches on EUA and not experimental treatment. But it is worth exploration. Thanks again!

[justyouraveragetenant]

Originally Posted by TexasLawyer2000

Which law are you referring to here? Just so we're clear in this discussion.

I don't know the law but there is something called the Nuremberg code which protects people from being experimented on.


https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.105...99711133372006

Interestingly enough it mentions coercion.

[Variable]

The precedent is already in place. Many employers require a drug test as a condition of employment. If you refuse the drug test, you don't get the job.

[Mr.Hospitality]

Originally Posted by Old Trapper

You brought it up moron.

Well, before you go around calling people morons, maybe you should read your own posts? You're the one who began discussing unions.

[justyouraveragetenant]

Originally Posted by Variable

The precedent is already in place. Many employers require a drug test as a condition of employment. If you refuse the drug test, you don't get the job.

A drug test and being forced to get a vaccine is not the same situation. getting a test is not forced medical treatment or coercion of that medical treatment. it is definitely wrong for an experimental drug or gene therapy or vaccine.

[TexasLawyer2000]

Originally Posted by justyouraveragetenant

I don't know the law but there is something called the Nuremberg code which protects people from being experimented on.


https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.105...99711133372006

Interestingly enough it mentions coercion.

Coercion has no way out. This wouldn't apply to employment as employment is a free market. You can get a job anywhere. Coercion would be if your employer threatened you so you couldn't work anywhere or in an industry.

That being said, Nuremberg code wouldn't apply here as the candidate would not be part of an experiment.

[justyouraveragetenant]

Originally Posted by TexasLawyer2000

Coercion has no way out. This wouldn't apply to employment as employment is a free market. You can get a job anywhere. Coercion would be if your employer threatened you so you couldn't work anywhere or in an industry.

That being said, Nuremberg code wouldn't apply here as the candidate would not be part of an experiment.

It seems some say the vaccine is considered experimental some say its not. What we do know it was only approved by the FDA for emergency use and to my knowledge its not the same as full approval. it usually takes 5-10 years to come up with safe vaccines.

The fact that this vaccine was rushed should be a concern.

[TexasLawyer2000]

Originally Posted by justyouraveragetenant

It seems some say the vaccine is considered experimental some say its not. What we do know it was only approved by the FDA for emergency use and to my knowledge its not the same as full approval. it usually takes 5-10 years to come up with safe vaccines.

The fact that this vaccine was rushed should be a concern.

Even if the vaccine is experimental, that doesn't mean recipients of the vaccine are part of an experiment.

That being said, I do agree that no one should be forced to take the vaccine as part of this EUA. But that has nothing to do with what employers want. Employers should have their choice.

[justyouraveragetenant]

Originally Posted by TexasLawyer2000

Even if the vaccine is experimental, that doesn't mean recipients of the vaccine are part of an experiment.

That being said, I do agree that no one should be forced to take the vaccine as part of this EUA. But that has nothing to do with what employers want. Employers should have their choice.

So you would agree that the state should not force the vaccine. In my state of Massachusetts, the governor has required all children to get the flu shot. this applies to young children up to some college students. obviously, I would not like an employer forcing a shot but when the state does it is a definite no no. some parents are homeschooling their children because of this mandate.

[TexasLawyer2000]

Originally Posted by justyouraveragetenant

So you would agree that the state should not force the vaccine. In my state of Massachusetts, the governor has required all children to get the flu shot. this applies to young children up to some college students. obviously, I would not like an employer forcing a shot but when the state does it is a definite no no.

I'm a conservative so my principals of small government largely apply to the federal government and leave the states to run themselves as they deem necessary.

That being said, I personally feel that states should not mandate children get the flu shot.

Now requiring children to get the flu shot in order enter government facilities and public locations is fine if the state and health officials feel it's best for the general population and greater good. But just mandating the flu shot for anyone just because they are a child seems like a reach to me.