Compulsory vaccination against COVID‑19: a legal and ethical perspective on public good versus personal reticence

Coercive measures to protect public health are controversial, eliciting questions regarding state-patient relationships and conficts between individual autonomy and public good. This is challenging in a time when respect for patient autonomy has become elevated yet society faces an increasing number of public health challenges, the most recent being the SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19). In that context, there is emphasis on increasing vaccination rates internationally in order to achieve “herd immunity”, raising the possibility of compulsory vaccination of populations in the future. Here, we explore current rights of individuals to decline vaccination, utilising prior learning from other viral pathogens internationally (specifcally, measles, mumps and rubella), and related public health outcomes. Further, we consider freedom of choice versus mandatory treatment necessitated to avoid contagion during disease outbreaks (such as COVID-19). In doing so, we utilise rhetorical reasoning in the form of casuistry focusing on the core challenges regarding public good versus personal antipathy towards vaccination.