This article was exclusively written for The European Sting by Dr. Muhammad Rizky Nur Karim is a medical doctor from Padjadjaran University, Indonesia. He is affiliated to the International Federation of Medical Students Associations (IFMSA), cordial partner of The Sting. The opinions expressed in this piece belong strictly to the writer and do not necessarily reflect IFMSA’s view on the topic, nor The European Sting’s one.
The COVID-19 pandemic is still not over. However, a new hope arises with the discovery of vaccines. The vaccination program itself is not without challenges. Many people believe and choose not to be vaccinated, for various reasons. To counter this problem, there are countries that implement restrictive measures. Indonesia, for example, has a law that will give criminal sanctions such as fine or imprisonment to those rejecting vaccination in times of pandemic. This policy raised a major question: is it ethically acceptable to implement such restrictive measures?
An important perspective that should be considered is the human rights perspective. While people have the right to reject vaccination, it can be argued that the right can be overridden in respect of others’ right to life. The Siracusa Principles mentioned that the right to life is a non-derogable right. If someone rejects vaccination during a pandemic situation, it could possibly endanger the life of others, thus disturbing others’ right to life. From this perspective, forced vaccination policy might seem like a good choice to protect the people and their right to life. Thus, it is ethically acceptable to do it.
However, it does not mean that forced vaccination should be done as a first choice. In a theory proposed by Ross Upshur, there are four aspects that should be considered in deciding a public health intervention. One of the aspects to consider is “least restrictive or coercive means.” It is undoubtable that giving criminal sanction is a coercive measure. Criminal sanctions will force deterrence, but it does not guarantee the public’s trust in the public health system, including the vaccination. To make people trust the vaccination, methods such as proper health promotion and educating the public is a better first choice.
The implementation of forced vaccination, whatever the disease is, might seem like a drastic measure for some people. Of course, level of restriction is not the only aspect to consider in deciding a public health intervention. But one thing we can agree on is that the implementation of forced vaccination reflects the failure of other public health measures. As long as other less restrictive measures can be done, there is no need to implement forced vaccination. Right now, we should focus on promoting the benefits of vaccination and educating the public. As it stands, forced vaccination is the last resort in this pandemic. While it is an ethically justified intervention, it is also a draconian measure.
References:
UNESCO. (2005). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Retrieved from: https://en.unesco.org/themes/ethics-science-and-technology/bioethics-and-human-rights
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
American Association for the International Commission of Jurists. (1985). Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Retrieved from: https://www.icj.org/siracusa-principles-on-the-limitation-and-derogation-provisions-in-the-international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights/
Upshur, R. E. (2002). Principles for the justification of public health intervention. Canadian journal of public health, 93(2), 101-103.
About the author
Dr. Muhammad Rizky Nur Karim is a medical doctor from Padjadjaran University, Indonesia. Dr. Karim is the former IFMSA’s Capacity Building Regional Assistant for Asia-Pacific for term 2017-2018. Right now, dr. Karim is pursuing a master’s degree in Health and Medical Law at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Dr. Karim is also working as a health law researcher at the Center of Health Law and Policy Indonesia.
what is this fscist article here?
The world has gone mad and especially the likes of you. Eugenicists created the Georgia Guide Stones to show those that comprehend it, what the real agenda is. Lower the Carbon Footprint they say, but who creates the carbon when they breathe the Oxygen in??? Is anyone too stupid to understand that they mean YOU??? The real agenda here is the depopulation of this planet, simply because those in power are so highly outnumbered by intelligent beings on this planet that they now fear for their own safety and therefore they have to guilt-trip people into thinking that they are the cause that the earth is getting warmer, instead of seeing that it is a natural climate cycle. The whole agenda is to get people alienated and divided from one another, because they are afraid of the old American wisdom: United We Stand, Divided We Fall. They want to assure that the human race falls and bows down to them as their slaves. The whole masking is only to prove their power over us, it does nothing to protect against any viruses. It is like brandishing cattle for the slaughter, because the less oxygen people inhale, the more likely they are to die, because cells that do not get enough oxygen will turn anaerobic and cancerous.