Affiliation:
1. Joseph S. Platt—Porter Wright Morris and Arthur Professor of Law and Director, Center for Interdisciplinary Law and Policy Studies, The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law, Columbus, OH, USA, federle.1@osu.edu
Abstract
Abstract
Vaccine hesitancy highlights a problem within current rights constructs under US law. Refusal to vaccinate is ineluctably cast as a contest between parental choice, to which the law traditionally defers, and state concerns for public safety and the individual welfare of children. But rarely is the discussion cast in terms of the child’s right to be vaccinated because our rights talk revolves around the capacity (or lack thereof) of the rights holder. If, however, we recast rights in terms of empowerment, then we can see that rights flow to the child, not because she has the requisite capacity but because she is less powerful. In this sense, rights exist for children because they are children. The authority of the state to mandate immunisation under US law also may be reconsidered because the state is acting to protect the rights of those less powerful – the children who cannot be vaccinated.
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Social Sciences (miscellaneous),Sociology and Political Science
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献