|
REPLY TO THREAD
|
|
Subject
|
Compulsory vaccination for Covid-19 and human rights law
|
|
User Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Font color:
Font:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Message
|
This is a disturbing read.....
[link to committees.parliament.uk (secure)]
Written evidence from Dr Lisa Forsberg*, Dr Isra Black**, Dr Thomas Douglas*, Dr Jonathan Pugh* (COV0220)
We are academics working in the areas of philosophy and law, with specialisations in, inter alia, moral and political philosophy, biomedical ethics, health law, and human rights law.
Our submission pertains to compulsory Covid-19 vaccination:[1] a requirement on individuals to undergo vaccination as a condition of release from pandemic-related restrictions on liberty, including on movement and association.[2]
Our evidence is forward-looking. We expect that a Covid-19 vaccine will become available in sufficient quantity to enable population-wide immunisation.[3] At that stage, the Government will need to consider the means of delivery, including whether it is necessary to legislate for compulsory vaccination. We consider the human rights law dimensions of compulsory vaccination by reference to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights. As such, our submission primarily addresses a live issue the second question in the Committee’s call for evidence:
What will the impact of specific measures taken by Government to address the Covid-19 pandemic be on human rights in the UK?
Our evidence takes the following form:
A discussion of the reasons why compulsory vaccination may need to be considered;
An overview of relevant legal provisions;
An examination of the human rights law compliance of compulsory vaccination.
Our analysis under 3 establishes two parity arguments:
If Covid-19 ‘lockdown’ measures are compatible with human rights law, then it is arguable that compulsory vaccination is too (lockdown parity argument);
If compulsory medical treatment under mental health law for personal and public protection purposes is compatible with human rights law, then it is arguable that compulsory vaccination is too (mental health parity argument).
Our chief conclusion is that, as and when a vaccine becomes available at scale, the Government should give serious consideration to compulsory immunisation as a means of reducing the impacts of Covid-19. There is an arguable case for the compatibility of compulsory vaccination with human rights law.
The document goes on..
Vaccine hesitancy
A Covid-19 vaccine promises to be the best means to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic on individuals and society. Yet sufficient voluntary uptake of a vaccine cannot be guaranteed.[4] Voluntary vaccine uptake may be limited by ‘vaccine hesitancy’, which the World Health Organization (WHO) describes as ‘the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines’.[5] Vaccine hesitancy in respect of Covid-19 may arise because of the influence of anti-vaccination movements, the uneven demographic distribution of Covid-19 morbidity and mortality risks,[6] or the mistaken belief that Covid-19 immunity has already been acquired.
Should a Covid-19 vaccine become available at scale, we cannot expect sufficient voluntary uptake. It is necessary for the Government to consider a policy of compulsory vaccination, with appropriate exceptions.[7] Such a policy requires an assessment of its impact on human rights.
It also goes into laws and mental health acts.
|
|
Pictures (click to insert)
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | | Next Page >> |
|
