Pikuach Nefesh and “the Majority”
Pikuach nefesh (פיקוח נפש) – the preservation or protection of human life.
When Maryland rabbis ruled that yeshivas could keep out unvaccinated children, they relied on a single argument: we follow the majority of doctors. It sounded reasonable. It also turned out to be wrong, not just factually, but halachically as well. The rabbis were not following the majority according to halacha. They were adhering to accepted practice, which is a different thing entirely, and not something halacha requires us to follow blindly. Rabbi Rafael Szendro decided to ask the questions no one around him was asking.
In his three-part essay, The Accepted Practice vs the Majority Opinion, הלכה למעשה, Rabbi Szendro takes apart that one reasonable-sounding answer: we follow the majority. That’s usually where the conversation stops. But what if we ask, majority of what? Then the majority opinion turns out not to be what it’s purported to be. He builds his case from history, science, and halacha, drawing on the actual scientific literature, which often says something different from the mainstream narrative. His examples include Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis and hand washing, smoking, and IV saline bags.
Rabbi Szendro writes:
How does a Rabbi justify making a decision which affects the lives of so many people medically and spiritually, when it would appear that they have no idea what they’re talking about? Usually, a Rabbi is expected to understand the facts of the case before giving a ruling or making a decision. The excuse they always give to this troublesome question is that we go with the majority. . . . (p.1)
He argues that a majority only counts when it is an informed majority opinion, meaning a position actually grounded in the science. When most doctors do what they were taught, parroting the CDC and HHS, it is not a majority opinion at all. It is accepted practice.
. . . First, we need to establish what it means to “follow the majority”. The only way we would ever do that is if you had the majority opinion. It isn’t enough to just have the majority, because then it simply becomes “the accepted practice.” (p.2)
The accepted practice masquerading as majority opinion is not a new concept. In Parts I and II, Rabbi Szendro shows through history and science that accepted practices have been wrong before.
I have heard statements like the following one quoted from various pediatricians:
“I have thousands of patients and I have administered millions of vaccines, and I have never witnessed a serious vaccine injury in any of my patients.”
There is a very basic flaw with that statement: The pediatrician has no idea what an unvaccinated child looks like. The reason for this is very simple: in almost all practices, unvaccinated children are not allowed. How can you say you have never seen a serious vaccine injury if you have nothing to compare to? . . . Here’s what the pediatrician meant to say: “It’s true that more than half of the children in my practice suffer some type of chronic illness or mental disability. But I can’t imagine it’s because of vaccines. I spent $200,000 on medical school, and they told me vaccines were safe.” (p.9)
In Part III he shows us through halacha that we do not blindly follow the “majority opinion” or “accepted practice.”
. . . In reality, I believe that the expert opinion in favor of vaccination counts only as one. However, I’ll give you 15, since ACIP, the CDC committee who decides which vaccines will be included for recommendation, consists of 15 voting members. Even that’s a stretch, because often those members have conflicts of interest, will probably lose their job if they vote against a vaccine, and most probably went to medical school. So, really the ש”ך should apply to them as well. But the point is, you certainly don’t have thousands of independent, expert opinions in favor of vaccines. How many expert opinions do we have saying that vaccines are not safe, and not effective? I believe we have at least 200 physicians who have spent a minimum of 3 years researching vaccines. For argument’s sake, let’s say we have just 20. Each of these 20 doctors count as a separate opinion. Although they went to medical school, their opinion is going against what they were taught. If the טור would פסקין against the רא”ש, which he sometimes does, then his opinion would count according to the ש”ך. These doctors who are against vaccines, are they doing it for the money? As hilarious as that sounds, I have to address this since otherwise intelligent people have made this claim. As I said, any doctor who speaks out against vaccines will lose their job. The only reason there are some who haven’t yet, is because they have experienced some sort of divine intervention. You can’t say they are נוגע בדבר [nogea b’davar – involved in, or affected by, the matter] when they risk losing their entire career, just so they can sell some vitamins or a book that they wrote.
According to הלכה, the majority opinion is against vaccination.
I’m not sure which Rabbi thinks they have the authority to disagree with the ש”ך. But let’s say you disagree with the ש”ך, and for some reason the fact that doctors are at risk of losing their job doesn’t make them נוגע בדבר for being in favor of vaccination. So now you have thousands of opinions who think vaccines are the best thing since sliced bread. But there are 200 opinions who say vaccines are dangerous. To be nice, I already reduced that number to 20. Now I’ll be even nicer and reduce that number to 2. There are only 2 doctors on planet Earth who say that vaccines are dangerous and
toxic. Who do we listen to?According to ד’ סע תריח’ ס ח”או] ערוך שלחן], when you have 2 doctors who say that there’s a risk of death, even if 100 doctors say there’s no risk, we listen to the 2 doctors. The משנה ברורה explains:
“ולא אזלינן בתר רב דעות בסכנת נפשות”
[And we do not follow the majority opinion in matters of danger to life]. . . We have a בפירוש שלחן ערוך telling us that when it comes to פיקוח נפש, we don’t follow the majority. . . . (p.11)
Read Rabbi Szendro’s The Accepted Practice vs the Majority Opinion here.
