Vaccine coercion has no place in a liberal democracy

A nurse prepares a syringe that contains the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine in Germany. Picture: Getty Images

On Friday Scott Morrison, supported by the premiers and territory chief ministers, announced that coronavirus vaccination passports would be part of this country’s four-phase pathway out of the pandemic.

I am not against vaccines and understand the government must keep its citizens safe by all ethical means possible, but governments, bureaucracies and business leaders have no right to enforce or coerce an individual to take a medical treatment against the individual’s better instincts or judgment. In a democracy, individuals have the right to make their own choices after considering every viewpoint. To this end, the government’s role is to persuade, not to coerce.

The Australian Immunisation Handbook makes this point clear: “(Vaccines) must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.” This principle of informed consent to medical treatment is enshrined in the Nuremberg Code of 1947, of which Australia is a signatory. This code came into being as a result of the atrocities of World War II and the revolting medical experiments conducted by the Nazis and other totalitarian regimes against their own people in the name of science.

Suggestions that mandatory vaccinations will be limited to certain sectors or circumstances because they are “in the public interest” are naive at best and vacuous at worst.

Where will this end? It will be the thin end of the wedge. In the US this has led to the introduction of vaccine passports, which the World Health Organisation has acknowledged gives rise to complex, ethical issues.

Florida Governor Ron De­Santis has banned their use in his state. “It’s completely unacceptable for either the government or the private sector to impose upon you the requirement that you show proof of vaccine to just simply participate in normal society,” De­Santis said.

Florida, with no lockdown, has had fewer Covid deaths per million than lockdown-mad states such as New York, California and New Hampshire. These same states have gone back to the future with Jim Crow-era laws segregating unvaccinated people or, like the Nazis did to the Jews, forcing them to wear labels. This is what happened to students attending their senior prom at a New Hampshire high school last month.

Recently the British Medical Journal argued that governments should approach vaccine passports with caution, given that more evidence about the long-term effectiveness of different types of coronavirus vac­cines and the duration of protection they confer is required, considering the emergence of new variants.

The BMJ also noted the public health principle of least infringement, which states that to achieve a public health goal, policymakers should implement the option that least impairs individual liberties.

What is more, the decision to take a medication must remain the sole preserve of the patient-doctor relationship, so that particular individual circumstances can be considered.

Since we have an increased understanding of coronavirus, it is evident that it is far less dangerous than the Spanish flu. It has an infection fatality rate of less than 0.1 per cent for people under 70. It would be difficult therefore to justify discrimination on the basis of vaccine status, especially if one has no pre-existing conditions or is not in a vulnerable category.

Further, as the BMJ noted, there are those who might not be able to have the vaccine for medical reasons, including pregnant women, who were not included in clinical trials.

Additionally, ethical concerns have been raised in relation to certain coronavirus vaccines that have either been derived from the cell lines of an electively aborted foetus (in the case of the AstraZeneca vaccine), or laboratory testing of them has been conducted utilising such cell lines. The Catholic and Anglican archbishops of Sydney, Anthony Fisher and Glenn Davies respectively, wrote of such concerns in August. Following this, the Prime Minister promised that he would be sensitive to these concerns. In his words: “These are personal judgments that people make and you’ve got to always be respectful of other people’s views.”

NSW Council for Civil Liberties spokesman Stephen Blanks advised that the federal government would need to ensure allowances were made for people who had legitimate reasons for not getting vaccinated, noting those reasons could be health, religious or conscience based. Such reasons are protected under articles 18 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said employers must provide “reasonable accommodations” for workers who can’t or won’t get vaccinated because of religious reasons, pregnancy or a disability.

Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt has declared more than once that the coronavirus vaccine will be “entirely voluntary”.

Persuasion is understandable. Coercion is not. In Australia, we do not discriminate (and neither should we) on the basis of race, sex, colour, religion, age and so on. Why then should we discriminate on the basis of medical status? Telling traumatised Australians they can work, visit their loved ones or carry on their normal business only if they inject a certain drug is completely unacceptable and indeed reprehensible. This would be unethical, discriminatory and nothing short of emotional blackmail.

Rocco Loiacono is a senior lecturer at the Curtin University Law School.