Establishing privacy regarding medical treatments
HB4757 would create a new article in West Virginia code establishing a privacy right related to medical treatments. The bill states that, notwithstanding any other law, a person may not be required to take, receive, or disclose whether they have taken a medical product unless the manufacturer of that product is liable for any death or serious injury caused by the product. It defines “medical product” broadly to include medical devices, drugs, and biologics.
In practical terms, the bill would limit the ability of employers, schools, government entities, or other actors to impose mandatory medical treatment or disclosure requirements unless the liability condition is met. The measure is framed as a privacy protection, but its language also reaches compulsory treatment and disclosure rules tied to medical products generally, not just vaccines or a specific class of treatment.
If enacted, HB4757 would add a new statutory provision to the West Virginia Code and could affect any state or local policy that requires a person to undergo, receive, or disclose use of a medical product. Because the bill uses broad terms like “medical device, drug, or biologic,” it could have implications for vaccination policies, treatment mandates, health screening disclosures, and other medical compliance requirements. It would also introduce a liability-based condition that could conflict with existing public health, employment, education, or licensing rules that rely on mandatory medical treatment or disclosure.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be presented as a privacy and bodily autonomy bill, suggesting support from lawmakers concerned about mandatory medical interventions. At the same time, the broad restriction and its dependence on manufacturer liability could draw scrutiny from public health, legal, or regulatory stakeholders.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s broad prohibition on mandatory medical treatment and disclosure, especially because it applies unless the manufacturer is liable for death or serious injury. Supporters would likely emphasize privacy, informed consent, and protection against compelled medical interventions. Opponents may argue that the bill could undermine public health measures, create uncertainty for employers and schools, and tie mandatory treatment rules to a liability standard that may be difficult to apply in practice.