Mandatory Vaccination Against COVID-19 in Europe: Public Health Versus ‘Saved by the Bell’ Individual Autonomy

Abstract The text aims to reconcile the bioethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice) (Beauchamp TL, Childress JF in Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, 2009) with used by legal institutions (primarily, European Court Human Rights) evaluate possible human rights infringements due mandatory vaccination against Covid-19 (legality, necessity, proportionality legitimate aim) (This is so-called ‘structural approach’ that ECtHR follows when considering interferences qualified right also stipulated article 26 Convention for Protection Rights Dignity Being regard Application Biology Medicine: on Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention).) National Public Health policies Member States Council Europe. (Even more, idea bring closer methodology teaching/learning researching via HELP platform Europe course Bioethics law students.) trigger test these using deductive reasoning pioneering Austrian case vaccination, while inductive how recent similar cases (such as Vavřička Others v. Czech Republic) contributed support theory next rights, there are duties. Since circumstances pandemic rather turbulent constantly changing (even this being written), time factor significantly influences conclusions drawn. Namely, author holds opinion a carefully chosen model, any severe disease threatens individual public health at particular time, period or might be reason restrict autonomy scientifically proven, safe efficient vaccines. Nevertheless, regarding Covid-19, current even if means coercion do not include applying direct physical force (As but suspended legislation Austria.), they proportionate infringement one’s private life consent sake health, least anymore.