The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Thursday ruled that compulsory childhood vaccination in the Czech Republic does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights and can be considered “necessary in a democratic society”. Did.
The Council’s ruling is 16 to 1 and is based on six complaints to the Czech government regarding vaccination policies that require children to be vaccinated with two vaccines (hexavalent and MMR) for nine diseases. Was there.
One of his parents was fined for refusing to vaccinate his child. In other cases, children were rejected by kindergarten after not receiving one or both of the mandatory vaccinations for a variety of reasons.
The court said compulsory vaccination represented “interference with physical integrity” and therefore acknowledged that it was related to Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention (the right to respect private life).
However, Czech policy “pursued a legitimate purpose of protecting health and the rights of others,” in the best interests of children.
The ECHR also said the policy had “wide” room for gratitude “and that the punishment for violating the rules was proportional.
“The fines imposed on Mr Vavřička were not excessive,” said ECHR, referring to Pavel Vavřička, who fined parents for not vaccination of their children.
For children who were not accepted into kindergarten, the ECHR said it meant “a loss of significant opportunity to develop personality,” but the impact was limited because it had no impact on primary school education.
“The court also declared by the majority that complaints under Article 9 of the Convention (freedom of thought and conscience) were unacceptable, and filed cases under Article 1 of the Protocol (right to education). Declared that it does not need to be considered individually, the ECHR said in a statement.
According to the Czech tabloid BreskThe Czech government’s plenipotentiary office said the ruling “sent a message to the world.”
“In addition to basic rights, people also have basic obligations and responsibilities to others,” the agency said, adding that the ruling “emphasized the importance of social solidarity in society.”
Zuzana Candigliota, a lawyer representing her parents, said the verdict was “disappointed.”
“Of course, for us, the ideology of non-critical vaccination became widespread before a thorough assessment of the adequacy of forcing a potentially dangerous invasion of the physical integrity of vaccination. The verdict is disappointing, “said Candigliota.