I think your stance is reasonable, but I disagree with it.

Remotely turning off a pacemaker is the ultimate example of empowerment. If I had a pacemaker, I would want to be informed immediately of a vulnerability, along with everyone else. Assuming it's a proximity-based attack, I'd have the option of driving to a rural area and booking a motel until the vendor deploys a fix.

This is obviously an extreme example, but addressing the most extreme example might be the best way to address all the rest.

How would I hear about it? Because HN, Reddit, and Twitter would all blast the information to everyone, along with "warn anyone you know who has a pacemaker." Even if I weren't technologically literate, someone close to me would tell me.

This is strictly preferable to the alternative: If the vulnerability is kept secret, my life would be in the hands of a select few who (a) know about the vulnerability and (b) may or may not use this information to their advantage.

When an independent security researcher informs a company about a vulnerability, the researcher has almost no transparency into how the company is responding to the report or what the timeline is for a fix. (HackerOne has made this a bit better, but most companies still don't have public bug bounty programs.) In the case of a pacemaker, it's very likely that the only thing the security researcher will hear is "Thank you for informing us. We are working urgently to deploy a fix" followed by a month of silence. This leads to the researcher doing increasingly desperate things to bring attention to the issue, such as emailing other security researchers in private. But an independent security researcher has no way of knowing whether the person they're emailing is trustworthy, nor can it be guaranteed that their conversation isn't being spied on. The researcher is also likely to tell someone (their husband/wife, their colleagues, etc) who are all trusted to keep it secret.

The responsibility for the pacemaker being able to kill me is squarely on the vendor, not the researcher. I would argue that the researcher has an ethical obligation to inform me, first and foremost, so that I can protect myself from the threat as quickly as possible.

When my life is on the line, giving me a chance to save it is much better than leaving it up to someone else to secretly guard it.

Some people might feel differently. For example, maybe they'd want to remain unaware that their pacemaker could kill them. But the point is that it's not a clear-cut issue.

Honestly, in that situation I would probably do nothing, since the chance that anyone would maliciously target me with a proximity-based attack is so small that it's more productive to be worried about being struck by lightning. But what if it wasn't proximity-based? Let's ratchet up the severity: What if somehow the pacemaker was connected to wifi by design, and someone gained control over whatever central server it was connecting to? In that case, I would want to be informed so that I could disable my wifi rather than trust that the server remains secure while a fix is deployed.

This all may seem unrealistic, but computing is still in its infancy. What about self-driving cars? I'd want to know immediately if someone could remotely gain control over my car so that I can not get in one. Ditto for planes.

My mind is open on the topic, so I assure you that if you try to persuade me otherwise, it will be a productive conversation. But it's hard to imagine a scenario where I'd rather not know of a threat. Can you think of one?

The only thing that comes close is if an entire city could somehow be destroyed remotely by any random troll on the internet. But in that case it might still be better to warn everyone immediately so that they can flee from the threat that was somehow constructed in their back yard, rather than keep them ignorant ostensibly for their protection and tell them later "By the way, you and your family were in serious danger."