The short answer is: of course. The below-linked article discusses the factual, yet not always obvious, information that sometimes vaccines can injure the person receiving them.
Vaccines are a drug that is put into the body. As discussed in the linked article, and when you think about it, all television ads for drugs provide the potential side effects of the advertised drug. However, medical providers seldom tell their patients, and the parents of patients, the potential side effects of the vaccine they are about to receive.
As a matter of fact, not only is there no disclosure or informed consent, but parents are also sometimes bullied and coerced into agreeing to give their children vaccines.
Why is that the case? I have thought about this situation on numerous occasions and what I come up with every time, is that maybe the providers do not want their patients to know the potential serious or deadly side effects of the vaccines.
For argument’s sake, let’s assume that conclusion is true. Then that begs the question: why do providers not want their patients to know the truth so that they can make an informed decision regarding whether or not to get the shot (s)? I will leave it up to the reader to ponder this answer.
To add food for (legal) thought, contemplate the notion that non-disclosure of side effects and using fear tactics to coerce people into agreeing to get the shot, borders on violating constitutional rights. Sure, the defense is that the patient did “agree,” but possibly under coercive circumstances and without proper consent based on complete information.
Therefore, it could be argued that this behavior pushes the envelope into the realm of violating a person’s right to privacy. Under the US Constitution, a person has a right to privacy and there are simultaneous restrictions upon the state in order to prevent the state from violating that right for every person. Since the government imposes the vaccine schedule for school children, the doctors are acting as “agents” by enforcing the state’s imposition or mandate of the vaccines. A person should have the right to choose their, and their children’s, medical care and that right should be fundamental.
Taking that legal information and applying it to the factual scenario of lack of informed consent coupled with fear and coercion, and it creates a very fine line between consent and constitutional violation. Therein lies one of the causes of the vaccine debate.
A solution could be that medical providers inform their patients about the diseases and the dangers, as well as the possible negative outcomes from receiving the relative vaccine for each illness. Then each person could choose to receive one, some, or all of the vaccines. That seems to be more in line with the Framer’s intent when drafting the Constitution, which is supposed to safeguard the freedom of the people.