Covid19 Vaccines

[akuma]

A thread to look at covid19 vaccination around the world including countries such as China and Russia who are already vaccinating some of their population.

First the UK and a government white paper discussing compulsory vaccination of the population of the united kingdom and how that relates to both human rights law and forcefully vaccinating people under the mental health act 1983.

"Written evidence from Dr Lisa Forsberg*, Dr Isra Black**, Dr Thomas Douglas*, Dr Jonathan Pugh* (COV0220)

Compulsory vaccination for Covid-19 and human rights law"

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/9253/pdf/

Key points from the paper.

"A Covid-19 vaccine promises to be the best means to mitigate the impacts of the

pandemic on individuals and society. Yet sufficient voluntary uptake of a vaccine cannot be guaranteed.4 Voluntary vaccine uptake may be limited by ‘vaccine hesitancy’, which the World Health Organization (WHO) describes as ‘the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines’.5 Vaccine hesitancy in respect of Covid- 19 may arise because of the influence of anti-vaccination movements, the uneven demographic distribution of Covid-19 morbidity and mortality risks,6 or the mistaken

45 belief that Covid-19 immunity has already been acquired.

Should a Covid-19 vaccine become available at scale, we cannot expect sufficient voluntary uptake. It is necessary for the Government to consider a policy of compulsory vaccination, with appropriate exceptions.
Such a policy requires an assessment of its impact on human rights."
***************************

"It is arguable that if ‘lockdown’ restrictions are compatible with human rights law, so too is compulsory vaccination. Current public health law rules out medical treatment, including vaccination, but permits extensive restrictions on personal activity, such as free movement and association. The law privileges the interest in bodily integrity over other liberties. The lockdown parity argument asks for a justification for treating bodily integrity as distinctively important relative to these

other interests.
205 3.3. The mental health parity argument

In response to the lockdown parity argument above, it might be objected that there is indeed something distinctive about bodily or physical integrity. The idea here is that we cannot in fact compare interference with bodily integrity with interference with other liberties, or that interference with bodily integrity is always worse than interference with

other liberties. Our mental health parity argument addresses this objection by reference to mental health law, which permits compulsory interference with bodily integrity."
**************************************

"The law permits compulsory interference with bodily integrity under mental health law. This derogation from the common law principle of no treatment without consent is compatible with the ECHR. It is arguable that if compulsory treatment under mental health law is compatible with human rights law, so too is compulsory vaccination. Importantly, the same protected interest—that in bodily integrity—is

at stake in the two contexts the mental health parity argument compares."

 

[zouzounaki]

i think you have misunderstood this. the 1983 mental health act is mentioned as an example of a precedent for compulsory treatment without consent that is considered by the state and the courts to be compatible with the echr.

it’s not saying they are going to section everybody so they can vaccinate them, or in any way use the 1983 act to do so.

 

[Mr Ripple]

Section 3 treatment order is only granted by an assessment of an individual deemed to be of a mental state where by they are a danger to themselves and others.
I'd be interested to learn how the mental health act could be used against the general population @akuma ?

 

[akuma]

i think you have misunderstood this. the 1983 mental health act is mentioned as an example of a precedent for compulsory treatment without consent that is considered by the state and the courts to be compatible with the echr.

it’s not saying they are going to section everybody so they can vaccinate them, or in any way use the 1983 act to do so.

I wasn't suggesting they were.

It just forms part of the argument the authors of the paper want to use to make vaccination mandatory.

"If compulsory medical treatment under mental health law for personal and public protection purposes is compatible with human rights law, then it is arguable that
compulsory vaccination is too (mental health parity argument)."

So someone who has been detained under the mental health act is deemed to not be able to make decisions about what treatment is best for them and therefore will have treatments by force without consent.
The implication is anyone who doesn't want to take a coronavirus vaccine for any reason is also not able to make decisions about treatment that are best for them and would form part of the argument to make vaccination mandatory whilst not breaking British or international law.

I'm not so sure a mandatory vaccine will be implemented right now but its being considered.
Interestingly the coronavirus act passed earlier this year made it so you only need one signature instead of three to detain anyone under the mental health act but obviously that's not relevant to a mass vaccination program as it would be ludicrous.

 

[akuma]

Section 3 treatment order is only granted by an assessment of an individual deemed to be of a mental state where by they are a danger to themselves and others.
I'd be interested to learn how the mental health act could be used against the general population @akuma ?

It forms part of their argument to present a case that mandatory vaccination is legal and justifiable, its all in the paper. It would be a new law not a mental health law.

 

[zouzounaki]

I wasn't suggesting they were.

but you said “...forcefully vaccinating people under the mental health act 1983.”

 

[zouzounaki]

It forms part of their argument to present a case that mandatory vaccination is legal and justifiable, its all in the paper. It would be a new law not a mental health law.

it probably would be justifiable in terms of the echr. any objection would likely be on the grounds of article 8, which has an exception for “public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals.”

 

[zouzounaki]

several european countries do already have laws making certain vaccines mandatory, for example.

 

[akuma]

but you said “...forcefully vaccinating people under the mental health act 1983.”

No I said:
quote:
"First the UK and a government white paper discussing compulsory vaccination of the population of the united kingdom and how that relates to both human rights law and forcefully vaccinating people under the mental health act 1983." : end quote

If you are detained under the mental health act you will be given any treatment deemed fit including vaccinations which is why they are referencing it as the best example of medical treatment being given without consent.

 

[Mr Ripple]

No I said:
quote:
"First the UK and a government white paper discussing compulsory vaccination of the population of the united kingdom and how that relates to both human rights law and forcefully vaccinating people under the mental health act 1983." : end quote

If you are detained under the mental health act you will be given any treatment deemed fit including vaccinations which is why they are referencing it as the best example of medical treatment being given without consent.

TBH it's a preposterous idea that the mental health act could possibly be used in any way to force the general population to do anything against their will.
The mental health act is specifically designed for those of mental instability full stop.

It's also not true that "if you are detained under the mental health act that you will be given any treatment deemed fit" as there are several levels and sub sections of being sectioned.
For example a section 2 residential order is just that where the decission of where the patient resides is decided and usually means being confined to a hospital or mental health secure unit usually for their own safety but the patient is free to make any decision on wether they accept any medication or not.