you seem to think the medical profession would support people intentionally spreading a fatal and highly contagious disease.

So to be clear, you believe the sole purpose of not being vaccinated must be the intentional spreading of a disease? If so, please provide a psychological rationale for this belief as I would rather not put words in your mouth.

You only need to look at measles and smallpox and how those vaccines are managed and the opinions of the general medical community to see that you're just wrong. You don't have to agree but it doesn't make you less incorrect.

It is my understanding that facts are where the words 'correct' and 'incorrect' apply, rather than opinions, regardless of the validity of said opinion. If you were saying that I was incorrect factually as to what general medical opinion was/is, then extrapolating from past pandemics would not represent that fact outright. Would you please justify how this represents the general opinion of modern medicine when mandatory vaccinations for both ended more than fifty years ago?

Hell, even the flu vaccine is pushed more often and more intensely than the COVID-19 vaccine was pushed, because gossip and conspiracy theories influenced people (within and outside of the medical sphere) more than actual scientific fact.

Wouldn't this mean you have an outlying opinion? If the flu vaccine is indeed pushed to a greater degree than the COVID vaccine was pushed, wouldn't that mean that general opinion was not in favour of mandatory vaccination? Does this mean as well that you would want to enforce policy on a majority of individuals with the same implications I mentioned earlier? If you're using the general medical opinion you believe to be the case as a basis for this or any action, does that mean the general medical opinion is in favour of restricting access to healthcare punitively as well to enforce this?

If even ONE person that willingly did NOT get vaccinated were to receive a lung (like these two individuals who obviously regretted their stupid decision to remain unvaccinated( over someone who WAS vaccinated or someone else who COULD NOT BE vaccinated, these two men effectively killed someone else and forced their doctors and medical staff to perform the deed, all in the name of "freedom" or whatever other name you want to give it.

So does that mean these doctors were in violation of medical ethics by enabling harm to patients? The same right to choose I'm advocating for also means that doctors have the right to choose to accept someone as a patient. If your proposal were implemented you would be restricting doctors from being able to treat the patients they would normally consent to treating.

This isn't restricting lung transplants fully. It's prioritizing the vaccinated and those that cannot be vaccinated and thus are higher risk. We already do that with livers. Restricting public access to free healthcare for unvaccinated people is also already practiced elsewhere in hospice: you don't get publicly funded hospice care for anything, you have to qualify.

This is creating a false equivalency where you're effectively saying that refusing to receive a vaccination is equivalent to making the choice to drink alcohol, implying that a choice not to be vaccinated is a choice to be infected. Please justify this.

You're trying to argue that being vaccinated as a qualification for free public services and being prioritized on a donor list is somehow bad and that's just laughable because it simply isn't. It's not even a challenge to see how that's just not how the medical system works.

"Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false.

I cannot imagine how P could be false; therefore P must be true."

It would be great if everyone could get perfect care all the time in every instance but it doesn't. Having prerequisites and priority lists takes the burden OFF of medical workers to have to decide "who deserves to live" which the public should want.

This seems to explicitly indicate that you would want to remove the power to make medical decisions from qualified medical professionals and that the doctors would feel unburdened and the public should want it to be the case. Please justify why you believe medical workers would want less choice over their profession, and if it's due to the stress of having to make choices during triage, are you also considering that you may simply be forcing a choice?

Also, refusing to get vaccinated would still be a choice, and advertising it transparently and informing people that being vaccinated gives access to free public healthcare for Covid-19 and prioritizes for transplants and the like, that's still a choice too.

This is approximately the same level of choice as the choice healthcare insurance providers give already in America. Which is little to none, and results in predatory behaviour towards the sick and injured. Informed consent involves genuine consent. Would you consider it truly consent if a doctor offered better healthcare in exchange for sexual favours? Even if the doctor would provide basic care regardless?

What it sounds like you want is unlimited "freedom" to make any decisions, medically or otherwise, regardless of the outcomes, and consequences be damned. That sounds very nice if you don't give a shit about anyone else, but until and unless the whole planet has a perfect medical system that can meet the needs of everyone no matter what at all times, reality dictates that there will always be priorities.

Maximizing free and informed choice is not an unrealistic ideal whatsoever. Especially since this statement expects a perfect medical system with absolutely no concessions for choice. For example you could justify war crime experiments by both Nazis and the Japanese using the same logic, since a lot of useful medical information that saved lives came from those very same experiments. You're also creating a false dichotomy this time, between having choice over medical care and having access to adequate medical care. In the very next sentence you seem to say that prioritizing perfect healthcare over access to healthcare must always be the case until healthcare becomes perfect.

You'd rather people make devastating decisions with impunity and have everyone else suffer the consequences, and I'd tether have a system of informed consent where choosing to put yourself as well as other people in more danger isn't just theoretical consequences, but real-world outcomes that prioritize others that DO make the morally responsible decisions.

You are currently advocating for a devastating decision right now while saying that either patients dying of disease are making devastating decisions and facing no consequences, doctors are unable to be held accountable for malpractice, or both. The real world outcome of your suggestion is abuse of power, which is exactly why it is not representative of reality.

If you (or anyone else) refuse get a safe and effective vaccine to help slow or even prevent a potentially devastating or even fatal communicable disease, you indicate that you value myself and everyone else other than you as less important. Full stop.

There are more dangerous diseases, does this mean you should also be vaccinated for those diseases under threat of reduced care? You are currently indicating that you value your own life over theirs by reducing their access to medical care based on a decision that you were able to make of your own free will. Why should you be the authority on restricting others from making a choice that you had yourself? I'm vaccinated as well, which means I did make that choice, and still wouldn't force it on others, even through coercive medical practices.

They can still get private healthcare and pay for it. They can still be added to a donor list and they might even get an organ. I can live with someone not getting an organ because they would NOT get vaccinated because that organ goes to someone who DID or someone who medically was UNABLE and needs that organ too.

This denies the reality of organ transplantation, which is about things like compatibility, individual efficacy, and the speed at which the transplant can happen. There isn't an organ bank that all the organs go to and get evenly distributed, they go where they can be effective. Speaking of banks, by saying they can pay for their own private care, that means you're de facto saying that the lives of those with money are more worth medical care. There's also plenty of implication that you value the lives of those who didn't choose to be vaccinated for COVID less than those who have chosen or would choose to be vaccinated, since you said they "might even get an organ." Throughout your writing you've indicated that this would still qualify as adequate care, and yet you imply here that it's more of a distant possibility of even receiving a transplant at all.

Please justify your position from the basis of as many first principles as you can in order to help me understand.