Mandatory Vaccination Against COVID-19 in Europe: Public Health Versus ‘Saved by the Bell’ Individual Autonomy

Abstract

AbstractThe text aims to reconcile the bioethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice) (Beauchamp TL, Childress JF in Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, 2009) with the principles used by legal institutions (primarily, the European Court of Human Rights) to evaluate possible human rights infringements due to mandatory vaccination against Covid-19 (legality, necessity, proportionality and legitimate aim) (This is the so-called ‘structural approach’ that the ECtHR follows when considering interferences of the qualified right and is also stipulated in article 26 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention).) by National Public Health policies of the Member States of the Council of Europe. (Even more, the idea is to bring closer the methodology of teaching/learning and researching via the HELP platform of the Council of Europe in the course on Bioethics to the law students.) The trigger is to test these principles using deductive reasoning in the pioneering Austrian case of mandatory vaccination, while inductive methodology is used to evaluate how recent similar cases (such as Vavřička and Others v. Czech Republic) contributed to support the theory that next to human rights, there are also duties. Since circumstances with the pandemic are rather turbulent and constantly changing (even as this article is being written), the time factor significantly influences the conclusions drawn. Namely, the author holds the opinion that with a carefully chosen methodology and model, any severe disease that significantly threatens the individual and public health at particular time, period or might constantly be a reason to restrict individual autonomy with scientifically proven, safe and efficient vaccines. Nevertheless, regarding Covid-19, at the current time, even if the means of coercion do not include applying direct physical force (As in the case of Vavřička or in the pioneering but suspended legislation for mandatory vaccination in Austria.), they are not proportionate to the possible infringement on one’s private life and individual consent for the sake of public health, or at least not anymore.