Before we specifically address the case, our discussion will touch on a number of issues:
1. May one expose himself to the dangers of inoculation?
2. Does the state have authority to immunize the populace?
3. Is the physician or health authority obligated to warn the populace of the possible dangers of vaccination?
4. If a direct cause-effect relationship between the injection and the disease has been statistically established, can the physician be held negligent for administering the first injection?
DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD
The halakhic principle forbidding one to place himself in danger is a double-edged sword; it obligates one to actively guard his health, yet at the same time limits the use of dangerous medications, medical experimentation, and unsubstantiated medical practices. The law determines that one may place himself in danger to avoid a greater one, only if the efficacy of the dangerous treatment has been adequately proven.
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein ruled that a dangerous medical practice is permissible only "when the doctors ascertain that at least half of the patients with this disease were cured by this remedy.
In certain instances one may endanger or even forfeit his life. For example, Rabbi Unterman noted that while no explicit permission is found in the Mishneh Torah or Shulhan Arukh for one to voluntarily give his life to save the community, nonetheless, he concluded that such action is permissible. Many have discussed this issue in context of war and concluded that wartime dangers are unlike other dangers; halakhah rules that endangering oneself to fight for Israel is not only permissible, but is a great mitzvah and privilege. The question facing us is: Does the duty to avoid danger obligate administering vaccines that will definitely harm a given percent of the population in order to save the majority from disease; or does this duty forbid use of these vaccines due to the inevitable damage caused to the few?
A VERY IMPORTANT READ FOR OUR CHALLENGING TIMES:
