European court of human rights rules obligatory vaccination may be necessary

Please don't post generic ideological flamebait to HN. It leads to repetitive, boring, nasty threads, which are the opposite of what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

sabellito• 5 years ago

Please, do expand. It seems like a pretty difficult and nuanced topic, to be reduced to an american pop-culture reference, as I'm sure you agree since we both read the article.

How is freedom dying? Who's applauding?

hknapp• 5 years ago

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg ruled Thursday that compulsory vaccinations would not contravene human rights law and may be necessary in democratic societies.
Although the ruling did not deal directly with COVID-19 vaccines, experts believe it could have implications for the vaccination drive against the virus, especially for those who have so far stated a refusal to accept the jab.
By Czech law, children must be vaccinated against nine diseases including diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hepatitis B and measles.

This makes sense against illnesses that are highly dangerous to children.

kasperni• 5 years ago

Here is a better link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has backed the Czech Republic in its requirement for mandatory pre-school vaccinations. The case was brought by families who were fined or whose children were refused entry to pre-schools because they had not been vaccinated. In a landmark ruling, the court found that while the Czech policy interfered with the right to a private life, there was a need to protect public health.

All the cases pre-date the pandemic.

fatsdomino001• 5 years ago

Grim. Medical autonomy is a basic human right. Once medical autonomy is taken away it’s not even a question of a slippery slope to a dystopian future, because you’re already in it.

knorker3• 5 years ago

It's always been the case that the right of your fist ends where my face begins.

You also can't implant a gun (an autonomous medical decision) and complain when it's still covered by gun laws.

standardUser2• 5 years ago

Various vaccines have been mandatory for schoolchildren in the US for 100 years.

So if this is "grim", it's been grim since before you were born. Guess that slippery slope takes a while?

giantg28• 5 years ago

It's not totally mandatory. They allow for exceptions and there's the option of home schooling.

dang4• 5 years ago

Please omit swipes from your comments here. Your comment would be fine without the last bit.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tzs3• 5 years ago

By that argument, the United States must have become dystopian in the early 1900s, when the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) upheld fining people who refused smallpox vaccination. Or in 1922, when in Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922) upheld a Texas public school not allowing a student to attend without proof of vaccination.

There was an interesting piece on NPR this morning on "vaccine passports". It brought up the history of the eradication of smallpox in the US up through the middle of the 20th century and a large part of it was making vaccination mandatory for things like attending school and checking this. They didn't formally have vaccine passports because the smallpox vaccination left a distinctive mark so all someone had to do to check was ask you to roll up a sleeve and they could take a look.

They did bring up a risk of vaccine passports that would not have been a risk in the mid 20th century: privacy. With the propensity nowadays to exploit for tracking everything that can be tracked and to tie together all the different databases that contained anything about us, it is quite possible that a vaccine passport system could turn into something more--showing you vaccine passport to be allowed into a store for example might end up being equivalent to showing you full driver's license, credit report, and everything else.

Any vaccine passport system should be designed so that all it reveals is that the bearer had been vaccinated, not who the bearer is. I can't offhand think of a way to do that other than having vaccine passports be active electronic devices which might get expensive.

mbg721• 5 years ago

The fear is a result like Buck v. Bell (1927).

dapf14• 5 years ago

The whole thing doesn't make sense:

"The measures could be regarded as being 'necessary in a democratic society,'"

What does vaccination has to do with democracy?

Also, freedom is the most basic human right. It's a pre-condition to every other right as almost every single one is a corollary to freedom. The right to live is the right to respect your will to live.

So, how can you put "human right" and "compulsory" on the same sentence?

knorker3• 5 years ago

wat. That's not what any of those words mean, starting with "preclude".

dapf14• 5 years ago

Ups, sorry, English my first language is not.

Thanks for letting me now.

stordoff• 5 years ago

The relevant standard is:

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of [the right to respect for private and family life] except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Therefore, the court must determine if the interference is necessary in a democratic society to determine if it is permissible under the ECHR or not. Per paragraph 273 of the decision[1]:

An interference will be considered "necessary in a democratic society" for the achievement of a legitimate aim if it answers a "pressing social need" and, in particular, if the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" and if it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
The Convention system has a fundamentally subsidiary role. The national authorities have direct democratic legitimation in so far as the protection of human rights is concerned and, by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, they are in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions.

[1] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-209039%...}

Edit: HN breaks the link - it needs a "}" at the end: hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-209039%22]}

giantg28• 5 years ago

Based on that info, almost any restriction could fit depending on how you spin it and they give great deference to the national authorities to decide if it fits.

dapf14• 5 years ago

That would be fine if the Czech government returned said families the taxes they took from them to finance public education.

No service, no charge.

tzs3• 5 years ago

If Czechoslovakia is like most other countries where people pay taxes for public education regardless of whether or not they have school-age children, then your suggestion makes no sense.

dapf14• 5 years ago

Even in this not-so-good system, in which some people get taxed for a service they won't use, there is the assumption that if you have children than you have the right to be supplied with state-provided education.

Is the state decides not to grant you the service, for whatever reason, then it should give you the money it would otherwise have spent in order to provide you with said service. Else you are subject to discriminatory treatment by the state, based on your personal decisions.

The parents don't approve giving their child a vaccine they consider experimental/risky/unnecessary, they do this in full use of their reason and with the children best interest at heart. The State decides no to provide educational service to the child, but the child still needs an educational service. The right course of action would be for the State to give the parents the amount money it would hav spent, so the parent can contract the services of a private educational institution that would give the child the education the child needs.

zenlot• 5 years ago

There's no "Czechoslovakia" for quite some time now.

knorker3• 5 years ago

That makes no sense.

Can I get my taxes back since I don't have children, and I've never been a child in this country?

And I've never driven on that road, can I have taxes back for the maintenance of that road?

dapf14• 5 years ago

It makes total sense. You shouldn't be taxed if you don't use a service.

We have an easy way to deal with roads: tolls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust

oaiey4• 5 years ago

And - while I do not know exactly for the czech republic - in most European countries school education is mandatory by law. It is not a choice situation whether you kid goes to school. In germany, ultimately a parent can go to prison for not sending their kids to school (rarely but it happened ... In case of a religious sect who tried their luck how far they can stretch the tolerance of the government).

dapf14• 5 years ago

Yes, that is a beautiful example of freedom...

It presupposes that some bureaucrat in Berlin should be entrusted with the educational decisions has the kids best interest at heart. The bureaucrat cares more about a child than the child's parents.

kyleblarson• 5 years ago

European court of human rights rules humans don't have rights.

smrk0072• 5 years ago

I would say yes, obligatory vaccination is a reduction of an individual's liberty. But, doesn't NOT getting vaccinated also diminish the liberty of all other individuals in society (i.e. The right to life), much like how the same principles of liberty are applied to outlawing murder? (The freedom to murder is diminished, but the right to be alive is increased)

AlexTWithBeard4• 5 years ago

Doesn't NOT donating 10% of your salary to Alzheimer foundation diminish the liberty of others to live a long and happy life?

Is anyone willing to come up with a proper version of a trolley problem for this case?

smrk0072• 5 years ago

Good point, I guess that’s a good argument to use taxes for supporting healthcare.

maxerickson• 5 years ago

We don't have to consistently choose every intervention that benefits the group over some individuals, we can evaluate them one by one and pick and choose.

lprd2• 5 years ago

I'm really struggling to understand all of this. I caught covid last year during the first wave. It wasn't pleasant experience but I survived. I'm still relatively young, the chances of covid severely affecting me (and those in my age group) are very minute. At this moment, I have no desire to take the vaccine. I'd consider taking one with more time/data, but that's just my personal opinion. To be clear, I am not an anti-vaxxer (a shame I even have to state that). The principle of this is what bothers me the most.

Now, I understand the need for elderly people and other certain groups to take this vaccine, but to simply force it amongst all age groups is beyond me. This seems very dangerous, and I don't why democracies are even flirting with the idea.

EDIT: For all those down voting, perhaps you can enlighten me?

__jem2• 5 years ago

Mandatory school vaccination is pretty common in most liberal democracies, no? Is this really a new idea?

BlargMcLarg2• 5 years ago

The idea itself isn't new, though it does open two big questions in the context of the EU.

For individual countries and citizens, do we really want the EU making these kind of decisions as what appears almost out of the blue? The EU isn't exactly lacking in criticism.

Can we truly accept "higher forces" making this decision without running it through the people? A vaccine may be a minor thing, and obligatory vaccination was likely to be accepted anyway. But what if something much bigger and much more intrusive is going to be decided that the public just "has to deal with"?

As someone from the EU, I can't with full confidence say the EU has been transparent in their actions or reasoning. These are people with immense powers deciding the outcomes of lives. I do need transparency that in whatever period of time, with all the rather intrusive technology coming out, they won't pull any weird stunts. This doesn't help making their case.

cxbates2• 5 years ago

When the vaccines had been tested properly over a long period of time, like the polio one.

slumdev• 5 years ago

It is not. Almost all of them allow religious, conscience, and medical exemptions.

Only the most totalitarian regimes don't allow exemptions.

Tomte• 5 years ago

It wasn't pleasant experience but I survived.

In that age bracket the main fear isn't outright dying, but "Long COVID", all kinds of problems affecting you for the rest of your life, or manifesting only later. Fatigue, lung problems etc.

lprd2• 5 years ago

I've heard of this, but I am curious if:

A) Is there any substantial evidence that supports it

B) If A, then how many individuals are affected?

If you have any material on this, I would gladly read it.

Personally, my mental health is horrible. Being in isolation away from friends/family (among all the other measures we have taken during this pandemic) have slowly deteriorated my mental & physical health.

simion314• 5 years ago

If you live isolated on an island I could understand, but if you want to use the public spaces like school, hospitals etc then we need to calculate the risks. If technically we could prove who spread a virus then we could give you the option to not vaccinate but if you cause someone else to get infected you pay , then you will actually have to calculate the external risks as it should, people would use the masks if they knew there is a small chance they could be accused and proven guilty of murder.

sputr• 5 years ago

but to simply force it amongst all age groups is beyond me.

That's how vaccines work.

This seems very dangerous, and I don't why democracies are even flirting with the idea.

You say you're not an anti-vaxxer, which I believe, but you ARE using their utterly wrong but elegantly misleading talking point. A society being "democratic" does not equal "every member of society can do what ever the hell they want".

And democracies have not been flirting with this idea, they have been implementing it, successfully, for over a century.

I'd consider taking one with more time/data

And just to drive the point home, no you would not.

Neither of us is able to rationally assess the safety or effectiveness of these vaccines (I'm assuming you are not a professional in the field from the arguments that you are using) so more data/time is useless to people like us. Either we trust the professional and institutions, or we don't. Not having faith in institutions/professionals isn't a problem - hell I even understand it and feel a non-trivial amount of it. But let's not pretend this has anything to do with vaccines themselves.

giantg28• 5 years ago

"That's how vaccines work."

Um, not really. Not all vaccines are given to all groups. For example, covid vaccines are not approved for those under 16, and Shingrix is only for people over 55.

"Neither of us is able to rationally assess the safety or effectiveness of these vaccines (I'm assuming you are not a professional in the field from the arguments that you are using) so more data/time is useless to people like us."

But more time and data can benefit the researchers. There are plenty of examples of authorities changing their recommendations based on more data.

kstenerud2• 5 years ago

Mass-vaccination is about reaching herd immunity, at which point even people who are unable to take a particular vaccine are effectively safe from the disease.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Protection_of_th...

dapf14• 5 years ago

The point of freedom is to be free to take decisions about your life, including injecting substances in your veins.

Would you agree with that?

kurthr3• 5 years ago

Because you can still catch COVID and give it to someone else. This is especially true of variants such as the SA B1.351, which appear to escape previous "natural" immunity even in recently recovered patients (3 months). You would be knowingly exposing other people to possibly deadly harm for personal uncertainty in now a fairly well demonstrated (multi-million person trial) safe procedure. The stabilized spike protein vaccines (not AZ or the original Sputnik) have shown significantly better effectiveness against those variants. It's not different from polio or measles as a school child.

So long as you're not a licensed professional or someone (in school) who is required to interact with the public, then I'd agree if you're willing to self-quarantine and mask and social distance whenever you go out, when you're free (morally) not to be vaccinated. If you want the privileges of regularly interacting in a society, however, you have to respect the rights of others in that society as well.

dapf14• 5 years ago

So, other people has the right to demand what you inject in your veins.

cxbates2• 5 years ago

The risk group (boomers+) have had so many advantages that I'm not inclined to risk my health with forced AstraZeneca for them.

They are doing just fine with various rent seeking behaviors in my country. I don't need to rent them my body as well.

monstersinF2• 5 years ago

In a year or two (when enough vaccines have been produced), everyone who wants one should get it. If you feel unsafe, get it. Wouldn’t it then be unethical to force people to vaccinate to protect those who have already been vaccinated? and at any rate we’d have herd immunity by then

I plan to get it but am waiting for a single long-term (1 year or more) study to be published first

sto_hristo• 5 years ago

Then this someone else takes the vaccine and all is good. It's nonsense to enforce a vaccine on people that are largely unaffected.

Shadonototro• 5 years ago

you don't vaccinate for yourself, nobody gives a shit about reckless people

the reason we vaccinate people like you is because you are reckless and can potentially infect thousands people

DanBC• 5 years ago

For all those down voting, perhaps you can enlighten me?

It's not about covid. It's about for example measles, which is for children a very serious illness.

lamontcg2• 5 years ago

If you survived the virus, you should easily survive the vaccine, particularly the mRNA ones. You already know that you tolerate virus mRNA and the S-protein being in your body just fine. The lipid nanoparticle poses incredibly little risk to you unless you happen to be allergic to PEG. You also have no idea of how well you're maintaining antibodies to the virus, or if you can contract and transmit a current or future variant.

corny• 5 years ago

Just an added perspective from Canada. Right now the covid variants are causing more and more of the new cases and, in BC, the average age of someone testing positive for the variant is 30. To make matters worse, the variants could be more deadly. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-variants-canada-c...

Our vaccination progress is frustratingly slow and only the most elderly population (80+) have had their first shot in significant numbers. Even if you are only thinking about yourself, you should not be dismissing the risk from these new variants.

If the pandemic continues and voluntary uptake is not high enough, you better believe that vaccines will become mandatory. Being responsible sometimes means doing what we don't want to do.

hamilyon2• 5 years ago

Consider TB and bcg vaccine. This is very real problem and very good example.

In perfect society every person should decide for themselves whether to get bcg vaccine for oneself and their children like, every day of their lives.

Being responsible for their actions, they should argue, before broad society, that they knowingly and willingly, being fully informed about dangers of tuberculosis disease and full scientific consensus about this terrible disease and best current methods of containing, preventing and curing it:

1) endanger themselves by not using vaccinations

This seriously compromises their right to live, work, and have children

2) endanger to substantial amount every other person around them

This applies not only to vaccinations, but to regular checks, preventative measures, etc as well. Serious violation of rights of other people to live, be healthy, work, have children, ...

3) endanger children, especially from socially vulnerable groups

4) endanger their own children, in case they do not vaccinate them

So, in perfectly informed society where every contagious illness is traced to it's origin, this person should bear blame for every piece of suffering which them caused.

Freedom and rights do not mean freedom to and right to cause suffering.

So, the first step of retribution and correcting injustice will be, first, correct the source of error, meaning forcing person to use vaccine (and other measures). He still should have an option to take control of his own life and deny vaccination (we are talking about perfect society) and choose complete exile and isolation for rest of his life instead. Like, equivalent of his death to all other people.

One could argue that the very act of endangering other person, especially a child, is still criminal and probabilistic suffering should be punished too, if probability is high enough, and TB - bcg is good example, because vaccine is shown to be hugely beneficent. Even regular TB is nigh incurable, and cure for AB resistant TB does not exist, so current epidemic is arguably a problem.

Of course, real life differ from ideal picture. We just short-circuit all this logic and give bcg to every child born without asking questions. And while parent can say no, this means voluntary exile, no school, no university, no work, etc.

giantg28• 5 years ago

"probabilistic suffering should be punished too"

So we should punish people for driving cars?

domador• 5 years ago

Yes, if they drive them negligently, in a way that is likely to cause harm to others, yes. Yes, if they fail to maintain them such that they're an accident waiting to happen.

The main issue here is negligence of taking reasonable precautions and endangering others' lives due to that negligence (even if no one was actually killed or injured.) People should still be punished for driving 50 mph over the speed limit.

jessriedel• 5 years ago

Just so everyone knows, in the US a similar conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court more than a century ago:

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

European court of human rights rules obligatory vaccination may be necessary

Related Stories