Australia here.
My Father in Law beat Leukemia about 18 months ago after a 2 year battle. As we are aware, you're never totally out of the woods. He now has a blood problem that was brought on by some delayed reaction to the chemo. In order for treatment, they say he has to have the vaccination first. I was blown away, does this sound right? BTW, the treatment of the Chemo reaction, is a low dose Chemo tablet. Doesn't sound right to me.
I'd think that an attorney could convince the hospital that they risk committing medical malpractice should they require a therapy (unrelated to the condition that the patient seeks to treat) for which there is merely a "provisional determination" of safety.
In the U.S. at least, hospitals are often quite bossy and authoritarian when they speak with patients' families on controversial matters, but become skittish and suddenly "flexible" when confronted by a law firm.