The AMA Is Working to Stop Religious Exemptions and Requires Doctors to Encourage Patients to Get Vaccinated

In 2021, the American Medical Association (AMA amended its Code of Medical Ethics Section 8.7 to include this requirement: “As professionals committed to promoting the welfare of individual patients and the health of the public and to safeguarding their own and their colleagues’ well-being, physicians have an ethical responsibility to encourage patients to accept immunization when the patient can do so safely.”

With that, the AMA has determined that it is an ethical violation for a physician to not encourage patients to accept immunization. A physician cannot be neutral on the issue of vaccination; he must “encourage” vaccination or be subject to license suspension by their state medical board for violating the AMA code of ethics.

Ethical Opinion 8.7 seems obviously intended to persuade doctors to encourage vaccinations. But, in my opinion, there is a giant loophole in EO 8.7. Notice that EO 8.7 uses the word immunization and not vaccination. That is a notable difference. The AMA seems to use vaccination and immunization interchangeably, they are related and often viewed as synonymous, but they are not identical concepts. One can gain a natural immunity without a vaccine and thus be viewed as “immunized.”

Thus, in my opinion, a doctor is not ethically required to recommend a vaccine for an illness for which someone has already suffered and thus has a natural “immunization.” Under Ethical Opinion 8.7, doctors are only encouraged to recommend “immunization” not “vaccination.” Indeed, technically, a doctor could recommend a course of homeopathic steps to obtain natural “immunity” in lieu of recommending vaccine immunity and not violate Opinion 8.7.

The AMA Ethical Opinion 8.7 requires that physicians have an ethical responsibility to encourage patients to accept immunization when the patient can do so safely.”

That proviso for safety seems to be an adoption of the American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs recommendation. In a report dated November 20, 2020, that AMA council stated on page 3, line 31, that “[v]accines are medically contraindicated for individuals who have histories of severe allergic reactions from prior doses of vaccine.”  It further stated on page 4, line 1: “It is not ethically problematic to exempt from vaccination an individual with medical contraindications.”

But the policy recommendation takes an Orwellian turn. On page 2, line 48, of that policy recommendation it states: “Policy also opposes non-medical exemptions, including non-medical exemptions from mandated pediatric immunizations.” That statement was an affirmation of the AMA policy opposing all non-medical, exemptions. The AMA Policy statement H-440.970 provides:

  1. Our AMA believes that nonmedical (religious, philosophic, or personal belief) exemptions from immunizations endanger the health of the unvaccinated individual and the health of those in his or her group and the community at large.

Therefore, our AMA (a) supports the immunization recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for all individuals without medical contraindications; (b) supports legislation eliminating nonmedical exemptions from immunization; (c) encourages state medical associations to seek removal of nonmedical exemptions in statutes requiring mandatory immunizations, including for childcare and school attendance; (d) encourages physicians to grant vaccine exemption requests only when medical contraindications are present; (e) encourages state and local medical associations to work with public health officials to develop contingency plans for controlling outbreaks in medically-exempt populations and to intensify efforts to achieve high immunization rates in communities where nonmedical exemptions are common; and (f) recommends that states have in place: (i) an established mechanism, which includes the involvement of qualified public health physicians, of determining which vaccines will be mandatory for admission to school and other identified public venues (based upon the recommendations of the ACIP); and (ii) policies that permit immunization exemptions for medical reasons only.

2. Our AMA will actively advocate for legislation, regulations, programs, and policies that incentivize states to eliminate non-medical exemptions from mandated pediatric immunizations.

The AMA is the avowed enemy of religious and bodily freedom. The AMA actively lobbies to thwart the freedom of every American to choose whether or not to be vaccinated. They require doctors to become shills for the pharmaceutical companies by opining that it is medically unethical for a physician not to affirmatively “encourage patients to accept immunization.”

Please understand that reality the next time you speak with a doctor about vaccination. He is NOT giving you his unbiased opinion. He will be in Jeopardy of being disciplined by the state medical board if he recommends against vaccination. Oddly, the doctor would be subject to discipline even if he is neutral on vaccinations. The doctor is under an “ethical” obligation to “encourage” vaccination. He can only be assured of not violating Ethical Opninon 8.7 by affirmatively encouraging his patients to be vaccinated.

5 thoughts on “The AMA Is Working to Stop Religious Exemptions and Requires Doctors to Encourage Patients to Get Vaccinated

  1. A few at the top AMA destroying healthcare and lives. I just spoke to a mother of a 13 year old, her daughter’s best friend just took her life in the midst of this COVID crisis. These few physicians, so called leaders, with the most powerful lobbyist groups believe they are untouchable so they threaten their colleagues, patients and all allied health members. Biden, Big Pharma will applaud them all the way to the bank, but one day when they are old, grey and w/o power they will all leave this world for the next and they will stand before God to answer why! It is not the vaccinated or the unvaccinated to blame, these innocent lives are blameless, it is bullies like the AMA leaders above that are to blame. God help them figure things out! The public will eventually turn against them. Had they kept their oath to protect patients rights, asked for more vaccinations, safer w/o MRNA technology the entire world would be vaccinated, instead they sold their souls for MRNA, the ONLY option they care about, regardless of who they harm

    • If your point is that the masculine pronoun used when discussing a hypothetical doctor is only a reference to a male doctor, then you are just plain ignorant. The masculine pronoun in a hypothetical includes both male and female. Godless feminists and sodomites have taken over our society and are trying to drive that truth from people’s minds.

      Have you ever read the bible? “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” Genesis 5:1-2.

      Notice that “man” was made in the likeness of God. “Man” includes both male and female.

Leave a Comment