Original document available here: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/9253/pdf/
And my response copied below. I urge people to consider writing to the authors and making their feelings known, although they are obviously subhuman, perhaps somewhere beneath it all there is some former memory of a conscience....
Having read your written evidence to the government, regarding "Compulsory vaccination for Covid-19 and human rights law", I felt compelled to write to you.
I do not for one moment consider that medical ethics deals with simple topics, however, I do think that the opinions of lay people (i.e. the general public) are very relevant to the discussion of whether or not to mandate a Covid19 vaccine , given that a) it is a simple enough concept to grasp, and b) it is they who will feel the consequences (both direct and indirect) of such a mandate.
The document, in essence, questions not the morality of the issue of compulsory vaccination, but the legality. Ultimately, you and the other authors conclude that two legal strategies may facilitate the mandation of a Covid19 vaccine. I would remind you that legality and morality sometimes have little in common (Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat to a white person was an illegal act, as was the concealment of Anne Frank); I would advise you to think carefully as to the implications of your support of the removal of individual autonomy in medical treatment.
No medical intervention is without risk (despite your assumption of the safety of a Covid19 vaccine), and you are attempting to change policy to force people to accept that risk, whether they are willing or not. How will you feel when, inevitably, there are casualties? (reference to narcolepsy diagnosis following H1N1 vaccination https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6413474/).
Even if you could guarantee that no person would be harmed by a Covid19 vaccine, the implications of the loss of individual autonomy in medical treatment are devastating - if we don't own our own bodies, who does? This opens up all of us (including you) to decisions on our own health being outsourced. This may include the mandation of further vaccinations, as well as treatments. I do not know if you have children (I suspect from your stance that you do not) but the thought of decisions on my child's healthcare being made by someone other than his parents scares me to death - we are not the property of the state.
Very worryingly, you invoke the Mental Health Act as a means of legally facilitating compulsory vaccination, and state "Mental health law provides an example where the law permits—exceptionally— compulsory interference with a person’s bodily integrity for their own protection and that of others when the nature and degree of their circumstances gives warrant". There are two problems here: 1) the exceptional nature of permission for compulsory interference under the act cannot conceivably be applied to the compulsory mass vaccination of the entire nation, and 2) refusal to consent to a vaccine does not constitute mental illness.
In your document, you do, however, provide a footnote (7) describing the potential inclusion of a clause whereby individuals may subscribe to submission to "lockdown" and other mitigation measures rather than compulsory vaccination. How utterly sinister.
I implore you to consider your role in all of this: do you really want your legacy to the world to be that you lobbied for the removal of informed consent? You are talking about how to facilitate the removal of bodily autonomy from real people, real individuals, with real lives. And you are a person also. There can be no greater betrayal. Ultimately, you are suggesting conducting an experiment on the population, which we will not know the results of for many years to come, and in which the participants have not given their informed consent.
I strongly recommend you watch the video linked below, to an interview with Vera Sharav regarding her views on health freedom - as a medical ethicist, I am sure you have heard of her.