There is a public policy angle of debate, and a moral debate. There is no morality in absolute obedience: you can invent a process to do anything at all for any

There is a public policy angle of debate, and a moral debate. There is no morality in absolute obedience: you can invent a process to do anything at all for any reason whatsoever. If we debate what a process should be to satisfy some morality, we need to debate on that ground first, and then the policy that enacts that morality as consistently as possible. If the morality you advocate is that vaccines should be administered against the will of the patients, then the policy I suggest you advocate for might be to have Vaccination squads that break into people's homes in the middle of the night and inject people with vaccines. It's better than demanding doctors to do it that as their Hippocratic oath bounds them not to do it and will fight you tooth and nail because of it. You could get to them as well by making it illegal for them to practice medicine unless they forcefully vaccinate all the patients as soon as they see them - without any medical reasoning that could be used as a lever for civil disobedience. But non-medical staff is the way to go, as brute and unapologetic as possible. The morality I advocate for is for vaccines to be administered at will, and for the anti-vaxers to be first persuaded, and then held reasonably accountable by their personal choice. If some anti-anti-vaxxer find themselves trapped in a dangerous situation because they are surrounded by anti-vaxxers, then they should get vaccines themselves and physically force it down on people, risking their own lives in the process (to get, in exchange, better life themselves). I would not advocate against those people, but neither for the anti-vaxxer that violently defends himself. I assure you that if these were the options for anti-anti-vaxxers, you would achieve much more peace and calm than with a system that gratifies their perverse pleasure of violence without risk or danger.