11 ms·
European court of human rights rules obligatory vaccination may be necessary
- mcc1ane 6y agohttps://www.dw.com/en/echr-rules-obligatory-vaccination-may-be-necessary/a-57128443 https://www.dw.com/en/echr-rules-obligatory-vaccination-may-...
- ecedeno 6y agoI don't think I noticed a url where the significant part was last before https://www.dw.com/ANYTHING/HERE/./IT/DOES/NOT/MATTER/a-57128443 https://www.dw.com/ANYTHING/HERE/./IT/DOES/NOT/MATTER/a-5712...
- dang 6y agoChanged from https://www.dw.com/en/echr-rules-obligatory-vaccination-may-be-necessary/ https://www.dw.com/en/echr-rules-obligatory-vaccination-may-..., which is broken. Thanks!
- Y-Bopinator 6y agoI’ll kill every one of you before I take the vaccine lol try me
- 1996 6y agoSo Star Wars was right, and this is how freedom dies: with an applause.
- bitdizzy 6y agoWe live in a society
- dapf 6y agoSo we must surrender our rights?
- david_p 6y agoWe already do surrender some rights, like the right to eat your neighbors, which other animals have. That's what makes us human I think. It's called the social contract.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y agoIn parent's defense, eating your neighbor is an explicit action. Banning certain actions is indeed inevitable in a society. Not vaccinating though is an inaction. It's more akin to a right not giving blood every couple of months. Yes, someone may die because of it, but making blood donations mandatory would be a strange thing. Or would it not?
- StavrosK 6y agoPaying taxes is a mandatory explicit action.
- mbreese 6y agoThe case isn’t saying that you must be vaccinated. The question in this case is — does the government have to let your kids attend school without being vaccinated? The explicit action is “attending school”. You can choose to not have your kids vaccinated. That’s your right. But then you have to live with the consequences of that action. In this case, that consequence is not being able to attend preschool in the Czech Republic.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y agoGood point. However for virtually every child there's no choice whether to go to school. I don't know if Czech laws say explicitly that school education is guaranteed to the citizens, but de facto skipping school is not an option.
- __jem 6y ago> Not vaccinating though is an inaction Not clear at all to me that failure to vaccinate is inaction rather than action. Viruses push our understanding of moral culpability and causality, but the comparison to blood donation isn't apt. In the case of donation, we're talking about an abstract stranger, in the case of the virus, perhaps we're discussing a distant downstream effect, but we could also be talking about killing your neighbor or grandma.
- dang 6y agoPlease don't do generic ideological flamewar on HN. It leads to repetitive, boring, nasty threads, which are the opposite of what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 6y agoPlease 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- sabellito 6y agoPlease, 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 6y 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 6y agoHere is a better link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397 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 6y agoGrim. 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.
- knorker 6y agoIt'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.
- standardUser 6y agoVarious 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?
- giantg2 6y agoIt's not totally mandatory. They allow for exceptions and there's the option of home schooling.
- ghaff 6y agoSome states have significantly cut back on exemptions that aren't for valid medical reasons and home schooling isn't really a viable option for many people. In addition, although I don't know if the case would stand up today, the Supreme Court has held that states can require vaccinations generally. (A 1905 case involving Massachusetts and smallpox vaccination.)
- dang 6y agoPlease omit swipes from your comments here. Your comment would be fine without the last bit. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- 6y ago
- dapf 6y agoThe 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?
- knorker 6y agowat. That's not what any of those words mean, starting with "preclude".
- dapf 6y agoUps, sorry, English my first language is not. Thanks for letting me now.
- stordoff 6y agoThe 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%22] 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]}
- dapf 6y agoThat would be fine if the Czech government returned said families the taxes they took from them to finance public education. No service, no charge.
- tzs 6y agoIf 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.
- dapf 6y agoEven 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.
- yokaze 6y ago> 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. Sure, but some parents are unfit to take decisions for their children, and quite apparently the culture in the US seems to be religiously (pun intended) on the side of the parents. In Europe, the fear of government in that regard is less expressed and the fear of parents mistreating their children by not giving the proper health-care or education overweighs that one in general. If there is a criticism on that point, I hope it will not diverge into hypotheticals but rather concrete current examples, where you think that is misguided.
- kyleblarson 6y agoEuropean court of human rights rules humans don't have rights.
- marsven_422 6y ago"Imagine my shock!" :Clown::world:
- smrk007 6y agoI 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)
- AlexTWithBeard 6y agoDoesn'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?
- smrk007 6y agoGood point, I guess that’s a good argument to use taxes for supporting healthcare.
- maxerickson 6y agoWe 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.
- aksss 6y agoEven in a democracy, it’s rarely “we”, but more often “they” - an unelected bureaucracy. The democratic choices are several layers (and years) removed from direct impact.
- dapf 6y agoIt's all about getting that 51%. This is why a democracy without a very strong republican and individual rights constraints is nothing but soft-core communism.
- 6y ago
- lprd 6y agoI'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?
- __jem 6y agoMandatory school vaccination is pretty common in most liberal democracies, no? Is this really a new idea?
- BlargMcLarg 6y agoThe 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.
- cxbates 6y agoWhen the vaccines had been tested properly over a long period of time, like the polio one.
- hamilyon2 6y agoConsider 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.
- giantg2 6y ago"probabilistic suffering should be punished too" So we should punish people for driving cars?
- 6y ago
- jessriedel 6y agoJust 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts