Compulsory vaccination – the next step for Covid-19?

5 November 2020 by

Would you be first in the queue for the Covid-19 vaccine if and when it is rolled out? Or would you prefer to wait and appraise its effects on more pioneering citizens? With nearly a year of widespread media coverage of the coronavirus, it would not be surprising if a large percentage of an already fearful population exercised its right not to be subjected to what would be an assault and battery under English law: medical treatment without consent.

This is a syndrome, and it has a name. It is called “vaccine hesitancy”. The WHO describes this as “the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines”. Our willingness to avail ourselves of a future COVID vaccine is very much in doubt, and it is in doubt in high places.

Should a Covid-19 vaccine become available at scale, we cannot expect sufficient voluntary uptake.

Update: on Tuesday 17 November the Danish government finished considering a new law giving the government extended powers to respond to epidemics. Parts of this law that propose that:

People infected with dangerous diseases can be forcibly given medical examination, hospitalised, treated and placed in isolation.
The Danish Health Authority would be able to define groups of people who must be vaccinated in order to contain and eliminate a dangerous disease.
People who refuse the above can – in some situations – be coerced through physical detainment, with police allowed to assist. See the Danish newsletter here. In this country, Health Secretary Matt Hancock has refused to rule out mandatory inoculation, telling talkRADIO the government would ‘have to watch what happens and… make judgments accordingly’.

In July 2020 a group of philosophy and law academics presented written evidence to Parliament proposing that individuals should undergo vaccination as a

condition of release from pandemic-related restrictions on liberty, including on movement and association

The authors of the report base this proposal on two “parity arguments”:

a. If Covid-19 ‘lockdown’ measures are compatible with human rights law, then it is
arguable that compulsory vaccination is too (lockdown parity argument);
b. 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).

They contend that there is “an arguable case” for the compatibility of compulsory vaccination with human rights law.

The debate over the legality or otherwise of the lockdown measures under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and the Coronavirus Act 202 has been covered in detail on the UKHRB, here, here , here and in numerous other posts. It suffices to say that, at the moment anyway, there is no legal basis for a mandated vaccination programme in English law. The current guidelines can be found within the NHS Constitution which sets out the list of responsibilities patients have in order to avail ourselves of their services, including a plea

[to] participate in important public health programmes such as vaccination.

This, and all other listed obligations, are not legally enforceable. Even for infants and small children vaccinations have not even been compulsory since the turn of the twentieth century, although societal pressures keep most parents compliant, since admission to state run nurseries and primary schools are contingent on a full vaccination record. But the decision on vaccination lies within the zone of parental discretion (Re C (Welfare of Child: Immunisation)[2003] EWCA Civ 1148).

The authors of the report refer to Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This permits for the detention of an individual in hospital for treatment if they do not have capacity to give informed consent under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Put shortly, the 1983 Act creates an exception to the common law requirement that medical treatment is only lawful with an individual’s informed consent.

Of course a compulsory vaccination policy would interfere with the right to autonomy under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and arguably it would reach the threshold of degrading treatment under Article 3. The authors of the report engage at length with Article 8 and its clawback derogations. But these ECHR arguments lie much further down the road. Absent the conditions set out by both the Mental Health and the Mental Capacity Acts, vaccination without consent would be prohibited by the criminal law on assault, and even grievous bodily harm, if the consequences of the treatment are serious.

Even assuming an entirely safe and effective vaccination, it is something of a step to proclaiming the entire population of a country is on a par with mental health patients who have been deemed enough of a danger to themselves and others to warrant medical treatment under detention. Compulsory interference with a person’s bodily integrity is not something that a democratic society will tolerate without detailed regulations and specialist tribunals in place. Lack of mental capacity coupled with risk to health of the individual and to the public is the only justification we have for such a draconian measure.

We have long passed the point where patients are held to be responsible for their own health. But imposing upon the population an intrusive regime to enforce individuals’ responsibility for public health is an entirely different matter.

 This paper was a written response to the open call by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in respect of the Government’s response to COVID-19: human rights implications.

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/218/the-governments-response-to-covid19-human-rights-implications/publications/

The authors have since published a paper emphasising that their original proposals do not endorse a policy “that imposes Covid vaccination in the UK” and that their July submission to the UK Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights is “about what policy options the law leaves open for responding to the Covid-19 pandemic, not about what policy the government should in fact adopt. Our starting point is that the imposition of vaccination is not currently permitted by law and would require an Act of Parliament.”

Read their statement of 9 November here:

.

32 comments


  1. Tom says:

    Cumpulsory vaccination with an untested “vaccine” that has been rushed through – NO THANK YOU!

    Whenever the Government wants or demands you have something, it is NEVER in your best interests – ever!

    Yes, there will be sheeple lined up willing to be unpaid huiman guniea pigs – that is their right. BUT, it is also MY right NOT to be assaulted by any government actor to be filled with a “potion” that has who knows what in it and unknown long term consequences!

    Given the blatant LIES and double speak we have had since this began and the fact some politicians have a vested interest financially in the phara companies invloved the awnswer is NO! .

  2. Matthew says:

    Any attempt to make the vaccine mandatory or encourage the vaccine via effectively preventing non-vaccinated individuals from interacting with society is a human rights violation and a dangerous mistake that will result in violence. Restrictions alone have damaged the mental and physical health of many individuals. This future they are creating is one without freedoms where humans are used as a global experiment in RNA vaccines.

  3. Andrew says:

    Compulsory vaccination against infectious disease is like chlorinated water. Both good news and we should not allow the tinfoil-hat brigade to disrupt either process.

  4. Rudy says:

    The DNA-altering vaccine being pushed will rewrite your human software, and this will pass to your offspring. It will change human DNA makeup globally for eternity. This is not even in the ballpark of the real damage done by conventional vaccines. It’s species-changing if we permit it.

  5. John Smith says:

    If the vaccine works those who have had it should not need to worry about those who have not. Also if they try to physically impose it on people my son will lose his dad for however long I’m in prison. I’m anti military anyway and have no love or trust for the police. There will be dire consequences for anyone trying to stick a needle in my arm without my consent.

  6. Jon says:

    When they can’t get around human rights law they will be going for the Mental Health Act 1983 to make these vaccines mandatory.

  7. Simon says:

    How come it is safe to take a vaccine that has taken less than 11 months to develop, but vaccines usually take anything from 5 to 10 years or more to develop.

    Sorry, I 100% do not trust this government or any governments for that matter.

    It is staring you in the face, the world population is out of control. climate change is our of control, so the only solution is to de populate the world with this vaccine.

    Mark my words, It will be made mandatory.

  8. Sam Mcloughlin says:

    So the choices are take an untested (long term) vaccine, from an industry whom at the best of times is creative with the truth, hides any evidence regarding damaging effects of their products and lies under scrutiny.

    Or be isolated from society which has for thousands of years dealt with infection and illness using a highly developed and evolved immune system specifically designed to deal with virus and infection.

    You are sadly mistaken if you believe the answer comes in forced vaccination and that will be the first step in a very dark stairway down to a dark place for humanity.

    The most enjoyable part of life is freedom to live,love,create and socially interact with our fellow humans the future being slowly imposed is one of isolation, separation fear anxiety and the loss of our freedom.. choose what you want but if you can’t see whats happening then maybe you should be injected with synthetic substances by greedy dishonest corporation

  9. Helenb Waine says:

    Maybe all ‘academics’ and ‘lawyers’ who agree with this bunch of fascists should be the first to be experimented on with untried vaccines. If they and their offspring suffer no ill effects, then perhaps people will willingly roll their sleeves up’. But to make it compulsory ignores more fundamental problems – big pharma is not philanthropic, it exists to make a profit at any cost. Thalidomide anybody? Factor 8?
    Deliberate suppression of the evidence, etc. And do these people advocate that no-one can claim compensation for any death-dealing or maiming side effects of the vaccine? Rushing out vaccines does not ensure proper precautions are taken. As long as profit motive remains there will be corner cutters eager to get onto the market first. So, make sure there are effective precautions in place and effective sanctions for drug companies who put unsafe vaccines on the market – including manslaughter charges if the vaccines kill and they were aware of it!

  10. Brendan Mitchell Jones says:

    Unfortunately, there are many people already with their sleaves rolled up and when the vaccinated people in front of them start to collapse and die. They will say “yes it works, they were not killed by COVID 19”.

  11. It may be interesting to note that vaccination of babies against smallpox was made compulsory by the Vaccination Act of 1853 and was generally strictly enforced. ‘Conscientious objection’ was introduced for parents only in 1898.

  12. Monica says:

    I see people walking on street and so self consciousness.people being condition by a public servant (government) The problem with uk is the British trust their government and i tell you for what I see it ,is like the public servant had put rope on the public neck,lined them up to be slaughter and enslaved them.The people so believed the government protecting their health.why do a government had to protect your health. GOVERNMENT supposed to protect your right and freedom not stripping you off.sooner many will wake up.no vaccine had ever being save ,millions of kids had be damage by vaccine and some died of being vaccinate.is so nonsense when they said anti Vax.Am not anti vax but most of these anti vax had their life turn upside down by vaccine or their child for permanently. Why is the vaccine company not being liability of their product.why is it in America millions of dollars paid to parents who vaccine had damage their children for life by the court.why is it in uk gov paid for vaccine injuries compensation. Absolutely madness.i rather died than to take these rush vaccine that God knows what toxic is in.The government is good with cover up and lies.people need to start reading more and understand how our body work.They all being bought.the lock down is pure human breech but the people accept it.eat healthy food and live natural life.toxic ingredients don’t have place to be in your own body.

  13. The vaccine thing is interesting. It is understandable that for a virus that won’t kill that many people and is generally dealt with, as expected nicely by our own immune system, people are pausing to ask if it is necessary. In the UK the average age of death I think it is 84? That is not to play down death but this needs to be factored in. In many many cases these people were not well before the virus hit and would have succumbed to flu or similar should Covid have not hit them. Add in the fact that this vaccine isn’t like a polio vaccine. It isn’t even set up as a cure, it is purely to assist with symptoms like Calpol for children on Lemsip for adults etc.

    I would like to know what is the actual vaccine plan?

    If you get this vaccine are you immune from Covid for a period of time?

    If this is not so, you could take it, get sick, show no symptoms, be infectious and spread it anyway.

    We need more independent data and not just data from the pharmaceutical companies as all said and done they haven’t proved to be that honest with their data in the past and have in many cases caused harm for profit.

  14. Tim Fallon says:

    I’ll take my chances without a vaccine ta very much.
    I’d sooner be exposed to the actual virus in the normal manner, natural inhalation, than have those big pharma fiends inject God knows what into my veins.

  15. Joe says:

    Those who want the injection get it,those who dont,dont get it. Youre own choice,personally i wont,il rely on my healthy immune system with good food and training NOT chemicals pumped into me.

  16. Ron Carlin says:

    Please be one of the first to be informed of my discovery of a vaccine that will stop the pandemic in its tracks. We could make it compulsory.

    It has been trialed over the past 9 months, and has been found to be efficacious with limited side effects (according to CDC, 0.26% IFR limited to elderly with co-morbidities). There has been some discussion about long term immunity, but given our current situation, even short term would be wonderful. If restricted to the young and healthy, should have virtually zero mortality.

    Let’s call it reverse 91-Divoc. I think you can see where I’m going here. Administering the vaccine should be quite easy: simply lift the lockdown and allow the young and healthy to go about their normal business.

    It may require a booster shot, but current research encourages the belief that in some cases this happens automatically through re-infection.

    We possibly need a placebo vaccine (saline, sugar water, Astra-Zeneca genetically modified chimpanzee adenovirus… whatever) to get a currently panicked and brainwashed population to accept this solution

    “I have never seen a vaccine do better than the natural infection” – Vincent Racaniello. (Tested positive last week, so already vaccinated).

    Last thought, there can be hidden truths in satire.

    Kind Regards

    Ron Carlin

    Director of the Panglossian Institute of Public Philosophy, Randburg, South Africa.

    +27725719167

  17. George Berger says:

    The vaccines are all rushed and controversial, and none will possibly have been assessed for its longterm negative side effects.
    Their efficiency is also very much in doubt and stands in stark contrast to what the population, in particular the at risk group, currently expects from them.

    The major ethical questions are:
    How can you justify using the risk group as the primary guinea pig?
    How can you justify vaccinating people against their consent?
    How can you justify vaccinating groups not at risk, like children?
    You can’t justify any of that here, and the latter is also completely dependent upon the factual existence of ‘herd’ immunity, which can not be proven at all: ‘herd immunity’ is merely a theoretical computer model and concept, it is NOT based upon any medical evidence- see CHD, Gatti, Montanari!

    The major reason-based concern is:
    How can we contemplate vaccinating key workers first and most comprehensively?
    Who will do their work, if the vaccines are found out to be mass killers for these fuinea pigs after a few months or years?!

    Square this with the above mentioned and well documented likely very limited efficiency of the vaccines and the fact, that a standardized PCR test alone would already end the pandemic immediately, and you know what peril we’re really in and what a possible, planned and best solution would be: placebos only in conjunction with that standardized (under 30ct) PCR test.

  18. Doug Young says:

    Ioannidis’ numbers are from a worldwide survey, but,yes UK & US numbers appear high. I don’t know specifically about the UK, although I believe, as our Northeast region did, in the spring, your NHS also returned many hospitalized CV-19 patients back into care homes to make room for the coming 1st wave that never overwhelmed capacity, as well as over-treating other patients with potentially dangerous ventilators. The critical point here, though, was the death certificate changes made by the CDC in late March/early April. 1st, they allowed any reporting health officer to call a death CV-19, even without corroborating positive test, which led to many more CV-19 deaths listed, since hospitals were remunerated more handsomely for those vs other respiratory illnesses. 2nd, and more impactful, was the change from calling seasonal respiratory illnesses “recent opportunistic infections” and thereby not being listed as the main cause of death for people who had many chronic health issues (heart disease, cancer, renal failure, diabetes..) to a main cause of death, reversing 17-year-old guidelines. One study showed that had this change not been implemented, ~90% of our CV-19 deaths would not have been recorded as such, and we wouldn’t have that 235,000 number shouted at us from the TV scrolls & newspaper front pages. It would be around 25,000.

  19. Willem says:

    “Maybe I’m making the same mistake as Boris in taking the scientific advice seriously?” Yes, you are making the same mistake in that you, just like “Boris”, only follow one particular group of scientists, but definitely not “the” science.

    And by the way, “Boris” doesn’t follow “the” science at all. He/Hancock/etc only use that slogan so they can later (in 2021) say that it wasn’t their fault, we “only” followed the science. I guess you could call it the covid-19 politician’s Nuremberg defense: “Sorry, your honour, but science = science, what could I, simple politician, do?”

  20. Willem says:

    “Maybe I’m making the same mistake as Boris in taking the scientific advice seriously?” Yes, you are making the same mistake in that you, just like “Boris”, only follow one group of scientists, but definitely not “the” science.

    And by the way, “Boris” doesn’t follow “the” science at all. He/Hancock/etc only use that slogan so they can later (in 2021) say that it wasn’t their fault, we “only” followed the science. I guess you could call it the Covid-19 politician’s Nuremberg defense: “Sorry, your honour, but science = science, what could I, simple politician, do?”

    The Covid-19 “the” science scientist’s Nuremberg defense is also already known: “Sorry, your honour, but that was only a projection, not a prediction. And by the way, I only gave advise. I was forced by my duty to give that advise. What else could I, simple scientist, do? It was the politicians who made the decisions!”

  21. Karin says:

    The new vaccine is going to be an RNA vaccine. It will not have gone through the rigorous testing usually required. Nobody will take liability for any damage caused to the person receiving the vaccine, i.e. you are a guinea pig and nobody cares. It will only alleviate the symptoms of Covid should you get it. So why on earth would anyone take it? Especially when there are treatments for Covid, and people could boost their immune system as well by taking supplements. It is not about a vaccine, or protecting peoples health, it is about genetic manipulation.

  22. www.raymondcooper.co.uk says:

    I wasn’t volunteering or advocating – just making a point. But can it realistically be said that a virus that has reportedly killed 48,000 people in the UK and 235,000 in the USA “almost never harms others”? Maybe I’m making the same mistake as Boris in taking the scientific advice seriously? Just asking.

  23. Geoffrey says:

    The page has gone. Arlene Johnson’s correspondents seem maliciously have conflated a predicted estimate with an intention. There is a conspiracy but it appears to be a conspiracy to mislead the public.

  24. It's me. says:

    Haven’t the pro-abortion crowd already established a “my body my choice” mantra now enshrined in law??
    Well we don’t give life ending Consequences to them such as isolation or jail for clearly murdering an unborn baby. So why is it even a debate in such a ‘progressive’ caring, tolerable, loving, nation?
    No one should be forced, ever! Once we do we are no different to the likes of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.

  25. George says:

    Actually Covid infection doesn’t usually harm others, most people are asymptomatic with the virus and it’s IFR is comparable with bad flu according to the WHO

  26. Willem says:

    That’s exactly the wrong point, Raymond! Covid-19 almost never harms others! Actually, the most common symptom of covid-19 is “I had no idea I had it!” The second most common symptom? “Almost didn’t have any problem at all, at worst (mild cough/few days like flu/bit of loss of taste).” Together those two groups are 98+% of all covid-19 cases.

    You do not go down the (near fascist!) route of mandatory vaccinations for something for which the two most common effects are either nothing at all or almost nothing at all! And before you say “yes, but (put in hyperbole based on hysterical corona hypochondria here)”: no, that’s just hyperbole based on your hysterical corona hypochondria.

    I will however admit there is one good thing about your statement: we now know who will be first in line to test whatever vaccination might come around early next year. (And please, we need numbers when it comes to testing: how about the rest of your family as well? If you think it should be compulsory, why not everybody in your family, whether they like it or not. Tell them, your mommy and daddy for instance, and then tell us what they told you. Something like “f*** off, you fool!” is my guess.)

  27. Doug Young says:

    Why did we decide in March, after thousands of years of living and very occasionally dying with seasonal respiratory illnesses, that the fault must lie with others. John Ioannidis, the Stanford professor who has been covering this since March, just published a meta-study on the WHO website, showing that this “epidemic” has an infection fatality rate of 0.15-0.20, literally in line with a medium to slightly high seasonal flu, and not even close to the 3.4 IFR that Imperial College used to propel us into this nightmare. And now we’re suddenly talking about either forced vaccination or forced isolation? There is no data to support this potential crime against humanity.

  28. Tony Sanders says:

    Judge not, lest, Hydrocortisone, eucalyptus, lavender or peppermint help to cure coronavirus and mold allergies. Convention on Pandemic Treatment http://www.title24uscode.org/cpt.pdf

  29. they did it with the HPV vaccine and so many others….what damage did that do? we’re just cattle/ slaves to them…..it has nothing to do with ‘law’….

  30. it’s all part of the plan and has been for decades…we’re still in phase 1, phase 2 and 3 comes later…

    https://arlenejohnson.livejournal.com/258789.htm

    IT’S NOT REALLY FOR OUR OWN GOOD, IT’S FOR THEIRS!

  31. under je law you’re legally obliged to defend yourself and arguably those around you…..

  32. www.raymondcooper.co.uk says:

    Lack of mental capacity doesn’t usually harm others. Covid infection does. Maybe the choice should be between isolation and vaccination.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: