THE case for mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations has brought about various discussions and debates worldwide pertaining to its efficacy and whether it is an infringement to one’s individual autonomy.
In Malaysia, as the country progresses towards treating the pandemic as endemic, the issue of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination has yet to be decided. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob mentioned that the matter would be deliberated during the Cabinet meeting.
However, the Government’s stance against anti-vaxxers groups is already clear when Health Minister Khairy Jamaluddin stated that the ministry has chosen to deny those who refused vaccination to the same benefits as those who are fully vaccinated.
According to the statistics, Khairy mentioned that individuals who refused get vaccinated in Malaysia constituted a small percentage of the adult population, with almost 95% of the adult population receiving at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.
This then begs the question as to whether arguments brought forth by dissenters against mandatory vaccinations hold water and whether there are any considerations needed to be taken by the Government if mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations were to be imposed in Malaysia.
One of the most common arguments raised by anti-vaxxers is that the vaccine mandate is a violation of human rights.
Firstly, anti-vaxxers would argue that mandatory vaccination violates an individual’s right to autonomy and self-determination over their own body’s integrity, which is recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 as part of the right to private life.
This right is implemented in both law and ethics, through the requirements of the doctrine of informed consent to medical treatment, which includes the right to refuse all treatment.
Secondly, they disagree with the state interfering with individual citizens’ right to their liberty.
This is because they are particularly concerned that it may set a precedent for future authoritarian state power exercises in a number of settings.
Libertarians believe the Government has no business interfering in what they consider to be strictly personal and private concerns.
They opine that the Government should have no business meddling with family or personal decisions, including healthcare issues.
Hence, the issue arises when individual rights clash with what is required to regulate COVID-19’s spread in order to safeguard others — namely, to respect and promote the “common good” and act in the “public’s best interests.”
The author is of the opinion that individual rights may be legitimately violated to a limited extent necessary to protect others.
COVID-19, as we all know, poses a serious threat to public health both locally and globally because it airborne.
When compared to other options, widespread vaccination is the only cost-effective way to establish herd immunity — where enough people are immune to prevent the disease from spreading freely.
By adopting the utilitarianism approach, the author opines that mandatory vaccinations are a reasonable encroachment on an individual’s liberty and autonomy, at least for certain populations.
This is because vaccination not only reduces the risk of catching COVID-19, but also successfully prevents the virus from spreading to the most vulnerable among us, such as those with disabilities and weakened immune systems, as well as children who are too young to be vaccinated.
It is only those who have valid justifications such as medical or health-related reasons who can be exempted from mandatory vaccinations.
Therefore, the author is of the view that vaccinations should be made mandatory because there is a collective responsibility in society to protect each other from harm, especially when it comes to public health.
If mandatory vaccinations were to be implemented in Malaysia, the Government must weigh many factors and strike a reasonable balance between them.
Personal liberty vs public health
One question that needs to be considered is whether such a mandate allows for exceptions.
Even though the Government has already granted exemptions for minors and those with valid health or medical reasons from being vaccinated, can those who object to vaccines on the basis of personal, religious or ideological reasons fall under the exemption category as well? The Government must be clear as to what exceptions may exist and who will decide if the exception is justifiable.
Furthermore, the severity of punishment for failing to comply with the vaccine mandate must also be considered.
It may be difficult to perhaps justify extremely hefty fines or other harsher kinds of punishment, such as incarceration.
Another essential factor to consider, according to the World Health Organization (“WHO”), is whether the Government has taken proactive and sufficient steps to address anti-vaxxers’ concerns.
This is because a mandate during a crisis will only be counterproductive as it will only strengthen anti-vaxxers’ opinions if their conspiracy theories, misbeliefs or misunderstandings are not sufficiently addressed.
All in all, in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, the two most important ethical principles are to use the least restrictive, least invasive alternatives that are reasonably available and likely to be effective in preventing serious harm or the risk of serious harm to individuals, or the general public.
When there are no “no harm” options in dealing with COVID-19 — a situation called in ethics “a world of competing sorrows” — we must decide who will be harmed, a preferential option in favour of the most vulnerable, weakest, most in need persons should govern the decision making. — Nov 21, 2021
