Why doctors are afraid to write medical exemptions

 ... even in life or death cases, for masks and vaccines.

They could lose their license to practice medicine -- not lose their job, lose their license.

Watch: 

So if you were allergic to ingredients in the vaccine or had a breathing issue that prevented you from functioning with a mask, a doctor in certain states will not write you the exemption you need. 

We have to understand that mandates are a public measure that takes no account of individual needs, much less the right of each person to determine the measures he is willing to take, especially to prevent an illness he doesn't have. (For more on bodily autonomy and how vaccine mandates have worked in the past, go here.)

Cruelty-free shampoo but not medicine

From the Unilever website (a company I chose at random): 

Making sure our products are safe without testing on animals

Every product Unilever makes must be safe for people to use and safe for our planet. We believe that animal experiments should not be used to make sure that our products are safe.

**** 

We also work closely with researchers in the EU ToxRisk programme, which is driving changes in safety science away from animal testing. 

Surely you have contemplated your bottle of shampoo during your morning shower, as I have done. You must have noticed a disclaimer: Cruelty-free shampoo -- no animal testing.

Why should we accept testing (not to mention development and production) using tissue derived from human babies, procured in abortion, for any product? 

If this much effort can be put into preventing cruelty to animals, why cannot a commensurate effort be put into developing ways of bringing medical (and other) products to market without the taint of immorality? 

Thou Shalt Not Kill refers to other human beings, not to animals. Let's get our priorities straight. If we can be delicate about animals, let's clear our consciences about babies.

Vatican Requires Covid Vaccine

Again, something I would post about on Facebook but prefer to mention here -- I would appreciate comments being about this particular vaccine and the principle of medical freedom/bodily integrity:

This article about the Vatican giving consequences to employees not receiving the Covid vaccine prompts a few quick thoughts:

Vaccines are not magic. They have side effects and risks (and they are all different and target different kinds of health issues) -- you only have to read the inserts that come with them to know this. 

Agreeing to a vaccine is a matter of being informed and of medical freedom. Up until recently, it was understood that one ought to have recourse to a "religious exemption" -- which I think is commonly interpreted to mean having a right to refuse (which could be and often is actually a scientific, medical assessment of risk/benefit). I think it's not a good name for it; it should be a "medical freedom exemption."

Not allowing medical freedom in the matter of something that is injected into one's body is a dangerous stance. Just because the substance in question seems inoffensive doesn't mean that every substance will always be inoffensive. Next time it could be something to cause sterility or a chip... remember, even today girls are given contraceptives (including implants) by health operatives without parental knowledge; they are even taken for abortions.

This particular vaccine is stated by its manufacturers to be experimental, and it's a human right not to be medically experimented on without one's consent.

The administrative body making decisions is usually the department of health, which is an agency run, remember, by bureaucrats, not scientists. In the case of an institution like the Vatican or a university or a hospital, it's just managers. Much of what drives vaccinations is a combination of checking off public health boxes and trying to avoid lawsuits.

The information they base their decision on comes from the manufacturer of the vaccine, who is indemnified (cannot be sued) for this product's malfunction (unlike other products they offer).

Bodily integrity is a human right. In Casti Connubii #70, Pope Pius XI writes: "Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason."