When Mandates and Shaming Are Ethical
At least if you’re an NYU bioethicist…
Through an ICAN FOIA request, my firm recently acquired a 2019 presentation given to HHS’s National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) from an NYU “bioethicist” named Dr. Arthur Caplan.
Caplan indicates that parents who decline vaccines for their kids have “bogus values” and suggests methods such as guilting “hesitators and resistors” and calling them “selfish, bad neighbors, indifferent to the vulnerable.” He also recommends that all states follow the sterling example of California and remove all non-medical vaccine exemptions.
His presentation is an excellent example of how vaccine zealotry has infiltrated every level of academia. You can feel the outrage in his presentation as you read it. Caplan seemingly can’t imagine why any reasonable person would decline this manna from pharmaceutical heaven—so much so that he feels it is ethical to enforce vaccine mandates and shame people into taking a medical product they don’t want! All in the name of “bioethics.”
At one point, Caplan even implies that parents should be held liable for any harms that come to their children as a result of not vaccinating. And who is liable if they do choose to vaccinate and the vaccine harms their children? Of course, in that case, the answer is basically no one—not the manufacturer, not the government, certainly not the pediatrician who shamed the parent into vaccinating, nor the school that mandated the product for attendance.
This kind of autocratic illiberal thinking—where evidence-free, righteous, indignant “greater good” arguments are pushed to crush individual and civil rights—is one reason I felt compelled to write Vaccines, Amen. What makes this example so egregious is that these ideas and tactics are being pushed under the guise of “bioethics.” Sadly, Caplan himself and his kin, as reflected by his presentation, lack the objectivity, emotional stability, or ethics to opine on this topic.
I offered Caplan the opportunity to come on my podcast to defend his views. He declined. That offer remains open and if he had the courage of his convictions, and truly believed in them, I would imagine he would welcome the opportunity to defend them in an open forum. But alas…
ESTJ most likely. Super confident in his ability to make the correct decision and never doubts a decision once made. Would never reconsider and ignores new information because of his inability to admit making a mistake. You can’t get an apology out of them because the notion of being wrong doesn’t exist.
Insufferable followers of established traditions.
Conflict of interest statement
Financial Disclosure Arthur Caplan serves as the unpaid chair of the Compassionate Use Advisory Committees (CompAC), independent panels of internationally recognized medical experts, bioethicists, and patient representatives formed by NYU School of Medicine in collaboration with Janssen. CompAC advises Janssen about requests for compassionate use of its investigational medicines. NYU receives administrative funding from Janssen to facilitate the CompAC committees. He discusses emerging issues in research ethics with WIRB/WCG leadership, and also gives lectures on research ethics topics to WIRB/WCG staff and fellows. He has consulted for pay with eGenesis Bioethics Advisory Board, Genae/Cardialen-DSMB, Biomarin, Cabaletta Bio, Accenture, MaxCyte, NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. Hevolution foundation. He was recently an Expert Witness for the Vermont Board of Medical Practice and State of Vermont.
The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36441934/