Compulsory vaccination in one country, while another has no access
Grace Kaspersma
While Europe hopes to stop the advancing omikron variant with various measures, the virus in all its
forms continues to multiply and mutate in countries where vaccines are still in short supply
(Hernández, 2021).
Currently, mandatory vaccination and equal distribution of vaccines are not included in the
International Health Regulations (IHR) legal framework. By including mandatory vaccination it would
be able to put certain limits on individuals, when specific situations, such as pandemics necessitate
this (World Health Organization, 2008). Vaccination is a critical technique for controlling worldwide
diseases (Li et al., 2021). For this reason, some argue that mandating vaccination is the best approach
to protect the right to health (United Nations, 2000). Still, compulsory vaccination is a serious
violation of human rights in various ways, and should therefore never be considered. Furthermore,
there is significant concern about prioritizing vaccination supply to specific population groups and
countries (Panagopoulou, 2021). Low-income countries are not always able to receive enough
vaccines to cover even a small portion of their population (Ramachandran et al., 2021). Vaccines
should therefore be distributed equally to ensure human rights (United Nations, 1948). This essay
states why mandatory vaccination does not follow the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity,
and why it is vital to expand the IHR with legislation on equal distribution of vaccines to guarantee
the right to equality, dignity, and health (Childress et al., 2002 & United Nations, 1948).
The prior coronavirus outbreak and the massive global turmoil that followed raised a number of
ethical and constitutional concerns (Panagopoulou, 2021). It was shown that many individuals felt
stigmatized since they did not accept vaccinations (Kampf, 2022). Stigma is contradictory to the
concept of the right to human dignity due to its humbling and degrading nature (United Nations,
1948). In addition, mandatory vaccination could increase the stigma linked to those who do not
vaccinate which could result in a great impact on mental health (Habakus et al., 2012).
In contrast, vaccine refusal is a major public health risk that is becoming more prevalent among
adults (Feleszko et al., 2021). Multiple studies suggest that the mortality reduction when vaccinating
is significant and therefore cost-effective. In addition, vaccines act as immunological boosters (Böhm
et al., 2016). Therefore, refusing vaccines contradicts the right to health, since unvaccinated adults
are more vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases and are more susceptible to transmitting them
to others (World Health Organization, n.d.).
Still, mandatory vaccination violates the right to autonomy, which includes the ability to refuse
medical interventions (Gualano et al., 2019). According to research, valuing the right to autonomy
promotes beneficial health consequences and significantly improves phycological health (Rouse et
al., 2011). Additionally, mandatory vaccination breaches Article 8 of the European Convention on
Human Rights, which protects the right to privacy (Wise, 2021). Privacy is not assured, for example,
when an individual is required to show his vaccination status. This quickly demonstrates why the
right to freedom is equally limited (United Nations, 1948). Individuals could be declined when
vaccinations are made mandatory.
Grace Kaspersma
While Europe hopes to stop the advancing omikron variant with various measures, the virus in all its
forms continues to multiply and mutate in countries where vaccines are still in short supply
(Hernández, 2021).
Currently, mandatory vaccination and equal distribution of vaccines are not included in the
International Health Regulations (IHR) legal framework. By including mandatory vaccination it would
be able to put certain limits on individuals, when specific situations, such as pandemics necessitate
this (World Health Organization, 2008). Vaccination is a critical technique for controlling worldwide
diseases (Li et al., 2021). For this reason, some argue that mandating vaccination is the best approach
to protect the right to health (United Nations, 2000). Still, compulsory vaccination is a serious
violation of human rights in various ways, and should therefore never be considered. Furthermore,
there is significant concern about prioritizing vaccination supply to specific population groups and
countries (Panagopoulou, 2021). Low-income countries are not always able to receive enough
vaccines to cover even a small portion of their population (Ramachandran et al., 2021). Vaccines
should therefore be distributed equally to ensure human rights (United Nations, 1948). This essay
states why mandatory vaccination does not follow the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity,
and why it is vital to expand the IHR with legislation on equal distribution of vaccines to guarantee
the right to equality, dignity, and health (Childress et al., 2002 & United Nations, 1948).
The prior coronavirus outbreak and the massive global turmoil that followed raised a number of
ethical and constitutional concerns (Panagopoulou, 2021). It was shown that many individuals felt
stigmatized since they did not accept vaccinations (Kampf, 2022). Stigma is contradictory to the
concept of the right to human dignity due to its humbling and degrading nature (United Nations,
1948). In addition, mandatory vaccination could increase the stigma linked to those who do not
vaccinate which could result in a great impact on mental health (Habakus et al., 2012).
In contrast, vaccine refusal is a major public health risk that is becoming more prevalent among
adults (Feleszko et al., 2021). Multiple studies suggest that the mortality reduction when vaccinating
is significant and therefore cost-effective. In addition, vaccines act as immunological boosters (Böhm
et al., 2016). Therefore, refusing vaccines contradicts the right to health, since unvaccinated adults
are more vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases and are more susceptible to transmitting them
to others (World Health Organization, n.d.).
Still, mandatory vaccination violates the right to autonomy, which includes the ability to refuse
medical interventions (Gualano et al., 2019). According to research, valuing the right to autonomy
promotes beneficial health consequences and significantly improves phycological health (Rouse et
al., 2011). Additionally, mandatory vaccination breaches Article 8 of the European Convention on
Human Rights, which protects the right to privacy (Wise, 2021). Privacy is not assured, for example,
when an individual is required to show his vaccination status. This quickly demonstrates why the
right to freedom is equally limited (United Nations, 1948). Individuals could be declined when
vaccinations are made mandatory.
