Personally, I don't like the idea of any medical treatment being compulsory.
You may not like it, but would you - if you were pregnant - like to be exposed to rubella and its potentially devastating consequences for your unborn baby?
Or would you have been happy for me to have been kept on in my research post in ultrasound despite my posting a clear and ever-present possible threat to my early-pregnant patients because I had no immunity to rubella, and could very easily have carried it to any of them who had low or waning immunity, with possibly-disastrous results to their unborn baby? Or is that somehow 'different' because it involves
baybeez?
Does
anybody in their right mind think I should still have been kept on to potentially devastate a family and their future hopes? Or aren't there enough possibilities for tragedy already that we need to add some deliberate ones? I most certainly don't, and any disappointment I felt was at my own body for not responding as expected to the rubella vaccine, not for the regulations around my job.
I emphasise that in my case I simply did not respond to the rubella vaccination with a measurable antibody titre. I forget how many rubella vaxx I had in total - four, I think. So I changed my direction of work. I was not so irresponsible or self-centred as to think that I should be allowed to continue in post.
On a personal basis, for the patient, I don't believe
in principle that treatment - be it medical, surgical, pharmaceutical, psychological or any other - should ever be made actually
compulsory.
HOWEVER that is a decision which is impossible to carry out, as it presupposes that there are facilities and legislation available which can - if someone's untreated illness causes them to be a danger to others or to themselves - swiftly and efficiently remove and safely and humanely contain them, while still complying with their wished for non-treatment. And it is abundantly clear that is rarely, if ever, possible, and frequently
entirely the wrong thing to do.
Now I will grant you that C-19 vaccination is a very different kettle of fish to eg smallpox or rubella vaxx. It isn't a sterilising vaccine, for one (probably the main!) thing, if we to compare it to the 'transmission STOPPED' effect of the aforementioned vaccines. However, along with regular lateral flow tests and appropriate masking, it is a very large contributor indeed to maintaining the health of NHS and social services staff, and the continuity and safety of its services and functions.
And as someone has already stated, a vaccination isn't treatment, it is prevention and protection. There are precedents for making certain vaccinations compulsory in certain medical and caring professions and and if you, as a member of one of those professions, or associated directly with them, don't like it, the answer is very simple ...