This ignores that courts traditionally take factors in to account like coercion or coercive circumstances. For example, if a tenant rents a place from a landlord and it turns out that after a few days the tenant is bitten to shit and back by bed bugs? The tenant may have indeed signed a lease with full consent and intention to honor the contract. The landlord is probably going to argue in court that, hey, the tenant consented, the lease is in plain English on black and white paper. Nevertheless because of the bed bugs that is cause enough for the tenant to leave the property, go rent a hotel room, and demand the landlord fix the infestation, and have the landlord be liable for the damages that were the hotel stay.
Granted, the pharmaceutical industry has a death grip on the courts, and you probably signed or agreed to a forced arbitration clause where pesky things like the rule of law wont be considered and the American Arbitration Association is going to find in the favor of the drug manufacturers like 90%+ of the time.
That doesn't make it right. Doesn't make it not coercive. Doesn't mean the "choice" was legitimate, especially in a world in which people are living paycheck to paycheck.
"Take the shot or lose your job... live on the street, be exposed to the elements, get hassled by the cops, have your valuables either mugged or stolen from you, even in the shelters, and have the cops come in one more time and completely violate your civil rights but get away with it because you don't have an income and can't afford proper legal representation to challenge them."