Since the initial COVID-19 vaccine roll-out on the 8th of December 2020, over 34,000,000 individuals have obtained the recommended double vaccine doses. Nonetheless, there have been levitated discrimination levels across the UK towards those unwilling to take the vaccine. Furthermore, a recent study in Europe indicated that the vaccine acceptance varied between 44% and 66%, hindering the 'ultimate goal' of achieving population immunity, also known as herd immunity. As herd immunity would allow our society to open up again and return to normality. Duplicated studies have pointed out that an average of 94% of adults have reported positive sentiment towards the coronavirus vaccine, while 6% are encountering vaccine hesitancy.
Whilst diving deeper into the most hesitant age categories, around 13% of those within the 16 to 29 years age bracket reported the highest vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy endangers population immunity, but not everyone can be vaccinated due to various issues such as allergies, HIV and other health conditions. In addition, children cannot receive the COVID-19 vaccine because of insufficient research and data, which further hinders our progression back to normality.
The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (PHA 1984) and the Coronavirus Act 2020 provides a legal framework for the COVID-19 pandemic appropriate measures. Ministers hold power to make regulations for 'preventing, protecting against, controlling or delivering a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection or contamination in England and Wales'. This regulation is stated in sections 45B and 45C of the PHA 1984 and the Coronavirus Act 2020 in schedules 18 and 19. Nonetheless, both of these acts cannot fully grant the legality of mandating vaccines due to human rights laws.
The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) ensures that individuals can make their own choices about their lives; this includes whether or not someone would like to receive medical treatment such as vaccinations. This act embodies 16 rights that everyone in the United Kingdom has and the legal duties that public bodies need to uphold regarding these rights. One significant human right with associations towards COVID-19 vaccinations is Article 9 (HRA), which states the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This absolute right acknowledges that people can believe what they like and is only restricted and unlawful if it does not meet three primary standards: lawfulness, health, and protecting the rights of others. For example, this article is when specific individuals do not believe that the vaccine is suitable for themselves and want to say no. These individuals cannot be forced to have the vaccine if it is against their wishes unless they have a reduced mental capacity which means a guardian would have a say here. In addition, some individuals have vocalised that they do not want the vaccine due to religious reasons because of ingredients concerns in the vaccine. This right must always be appreciated by public bodies to ensure these fundamental human rights are intact.
In addition, Article 5 of the HRA enforces the right to liberty and is applicable in ensuring that an individual is not stripped of their control via public bodies. However, the right to liberty can be restricted if necessary under specific circumstances such as health reasons under the Mental Health Act and 'preventing the spreading of infectious diseases' (Art. 5, (e)). Still, these specific circumstances are not lawfully allowed to be condoned if they require intensive restrictions such as inhumane treatment, as this would risk the "best interest" of particular individuals. For example, the Court of Protection recently had a specific case that contained the review of Mr CR mental capacity towards having the vaccine. This individual suffered from learning disabilities and epilepsy and was deemed 'clinically vulnerable' to COVID-19. It was later ruled that the court could not carry out "physical intervention" as it went against the right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment, an absolute human right (Article 3 HRA).
An overview of the fundamental human rights that will impede the chances of a speedy return back to normality all contain the steady moral argument of freedom to choices. These absolute rights should never be crossed, even if they let the nation return to a less restricted society. The government must ensure the proper protection of these fundamental human rights for many reasons. Providing the legal line is not crossed will ensure inhumane treatments are not born through these modest moral skeletons.
Comments