Constitutional approaches to state vaccination policy against the COVID-19 pandemic: problems of legal definition and regulation

Abstract

Vaccination is one of the most effective means of protecting people against the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, some governments and organizations have made vaccination against the COVID-19 pandemic “mandatory” in order to increase vaccination rates, fulfill what is considered a duty of care for at-risk populations, and/or achieve public health goals. Others may ponder whether they should do the same, and if so, under what conditions, for whom, and in what context.
 Governments and institutions mandate many actions or types of behavior to protect the welfare of society. For example, in many parts of the world people are required to wear seat belts, motorists with poor vision to wear corrective lenses, restaurant owners are required to undergo regular food service inspections, and certain jobs require medical examinations. Governments and institutions have also previously required vaccination as a condition for working in certain settings/roles or attending school. Such vaccination policies may be ethically justifiable because they may be critical to protecting the health and well-being of the population. However, this value may conflict with other values, such as individual freedom and autonomy (ie the ability for people to make their own decisions about their own health). Although interference with individual freedom or autonomy does not necessarily render vaccination policy intervention unjustified, policies that limit or eliminate individual choice may be controversial and raise a number of ethical considerations and considerations, and should therefore be justified by the promotion of another worthwhile social goal, such as public health protection. Vaccination mandates may be ethically justifiable, but their ethical justification depends on a number of conditions and considerations, including the contexts in which they are implemented.