Is this how American health care ends? Not with a bang, but a whimper of assent?

We refer not only to the craven Republicans in the U.S. Senate who, despite well-founded misgivings, are moving along the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to become public-health enemy number one, as he most assuredly would be, but also to something much closer to home.

New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella last month successfully jawboned Dartmouth Health into abandoning an accepted kidney transplant treatment protocol and substituting a fringe opinion embodied in state law for the respected clinical judgment of medical specialists.

At Formella’s behest, DH dropped the requirement that candidates for kidney transplants be vaccinated against COVID-19, even though organ transplant patients run a much higher risk of dying or becoming severely ill from the disease. This is in part because of the regimen of immunosuppression drugs they must follow to prevent their body from rejecting the transplanted organ.

The last time we looked, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended COVID vaccinations for anyone with compromised immune systems — although we probably should be prepared to find that advice deleted if Kennedy takes charge.

Formella sprang into action when a resident of Gilford, N.H., objected to the vaccine requirement for getting on the kidney transplant list. According to New Hampshire Public Radio, she said she had safety concerns about the COVID vaccine given the vulnerable state of her health.

Invoking a 2022 provision of the state’s Patients’ Bill of Rights — “The patient shall not be denied admission, care or services based solely on the patient’s vaccination status” — Formella intervened on behalf of the patient.

“After reviewing the matter and engaging with Dartmouth Health, we are pleased that they have taken the steps necessary to align their policies with the rights of patients and the requirements of state law,” he announced in mid-January.

For its part, NHPR reported, the health system said it bases its clinical policies on “proven scientific data” to support patients’ best outcomes and decided to remove the vaccine requirement after “extensive review.” One wonders whether this means that proven scientific data no longer supports the vaccine requirement or simply that DH concluded that there was no legal path forward to contest the state law? It seems to us that if prestigious health care systems don’t push back against the politicization of science, they invite more invidious meddling. Going forward, DH will strongly encourage, but not require, the vaccination for kidney transplant recipients.

Apart from the individual case, this episode raises a host of other, more general questions.

What moral duty does a transplant recipient owe to the donor to take every possible precaution to ensure that the procedure is a success and the organ thrives and endures? Even if the donor consents to the lack of vaccination, it seems to us that the obligation to honor the gift is paramount when it is, or may be, the difference between life and death.

Similarly, on what basis does someone entrusting their life to a sophisticated medical miracle such as a kidney transplant decide that only some of the expert guidance offered is worth heeding?

Does rejecting COVID vaccination at the time of the procedure or in the future complicate or compromise the complex regime of immunosuppression drugs on which success may hinge?

How do highly specialized transplant teams regard being forced to ignore an important safety precaution that could undermine the success of their mission? Often they care deeply about the patient and their well-being not only at the time of the transplant but for years afterward. Who could blame them for feeling betrayed if a patient’s failure to take a simple precaution resulted in a bad outcome? And does the absence of patient COVID vaccination present a danger to them?

What effect will this new rule have on potential donors who may fear that their gift will be wasted?

And to the extent that everyone pays for health care, does not the public have an interest in making sure that dollars are not squandered on expensive treatment of a transplant patient whose recovery and continued good health are jeopardized by refusing a vaccine?

When medical science becomes the plaything of politicians, no good can come from it — as we are all about to find out.