The Evolving Battle Over Vaccine Mandates and Informed Consent in America
In early February, Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo made headlines by announcing the state’s intention to become the first in the nation to eliminate all vaccine mandates, extending beyond Covid-19 requirements to include long-standing immunizations for diseases like measles, polio, and hepatitis B. Speaking at a press conference, Ladapo framed the move as a defense of personal liberty, declaring, “Your body is a gift from God… Government does not have that right.” This policy shift, initially proposed in September 2025 by Governor Ron DeSantis (R) and Ladapo, aims to dismantle mandates for schools, nursing homes, and other institutions, arguing that they infringe on individual autonomy. If enacted by the Legislature, it could start a ripple effect, as more people are waking up to the truth about vaccines.
Ladapo’s announcement sparked widespread debate, with many Americans celebrating the push for “medical freedom.” Supporters argue it empowers parents and individuals, aligning with a broader post-Covid anti-mandate sentiment. Critics condemn it as a dangerous rollback that could endanger vulnerable populations, such as immunocompromised children. As of this month, bills like SB 1756 have advanced in the Florida Senate, expanding exemptions but stopping short of a full ban, amid reports of measles cases fueling the controversy. Public health officials fear this could inspire similar actions in conservative states like Idaho, which has already followed suit.
Using Obscure Language to Bypass Informed-consent Laws
Compounding these concerns is a parallel issue raised by whistleblowers who claim that hospitals are subtly replacing the term “vaccine” on consent forms with hazier terms like “biologics” or “biogenics.” While these seemingly esoteric words are in fact well-known categories in U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory literature, they may be obscure for the average person. This shift could enable medical staff to administer vaccines, gene therapies, or monoclonal antibodies without explicit patient consent, especially during surgeries, when patients are under anesthesia. Opponents point to the FDA’s definition of biologics, which encompasses vaccines alongside blood products and stem cells, suggesting hospitals exploit this ambiguity to bypass informed-consent laws.
However, the foundational text Principles of Biomedical Ethics by Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress established four categories that uphold medical ethics: Nonmaleficence, Beneficence, Justice, and Autonomy. This last category of Autonomy is what is at issue if patients are not being given enough clarity to intelligently grant informed consent for a procedure. If the medical establishment employs vague, abstruse terms on consent forms — such as reclassifying “vaccines” under broad categories like “biologics” or “biogenics” — this practice undermines the core elements of informed consent by obscuring the specific nature, risks, and implications of the procedures, thereby preventing patients from achieving the substantial understanding necessary for autonomous decision-making.
Regardless, no federal investigations have yet confirmed the allegations of widespread word-substitution on consent-forms. Let the patient beware.
This article is part of The New American’s weekly online newsletter Insider Report, which is emailed to TNA subscribers each week. Click here to subscribe to The New American to receive the Insider Report and access exclusive content.
