The coronavirus pandemic has claimed a considerable number of lives since its appearance. In this regard, countries began to take various measures to preserve people’s health. One of these measures was the introduction of vaccination, which is becoming mandatory in some countries. This influenced the emergence of many debates, and the population was divided into two camps. This speech debate aims to prove that mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 is not a violation of civil rights and should be positively welcomed by society. Provided that clear rules and regulations are established, this measure will not oppose the rights of people. Moreover, there is a need for a clear justification of what is necessary and applied in the interests of public health and safety.
The first argument may be the point of view that mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 will not violate human rights, provided that it establishes clear parameters and strong legislation on this issue. Thus, this measure should include a justification that vaccination is being implemented in the interests of public health and safety (King et al., 2022). On the part of State bodies, there should be an initiative and a guarantee that it will fulfill its positive obligation to protect the rights of residents of the country.
Moreover, another argument that needs to be given for mandatory vaccination is the presentation of evidence and the dissemination of awareness about the importance of this measure. This is since the COVID-19 pandemic poses a significant threat to the population. Despite the fact that new strains are emerging that are not as hard to tolerate as those that were at the beginning of the pandemic, they can also have a detrimental effect. Moreover, even if people have had a coronavirus infection, they can still infect others (Sekalala et al., 2020). The threat is that if a person with severe chronic diseases gets sick, they can only worsen and have long-lasting negative consequences. For example, people with diabetes mellitus are at risk, where, against the background of reduced immunity, complications with the whole body may occur.
Another argument in favor of mandatory vaccination as an act that does not violate people’s rights is social responsibility. This phenomenon is the fulfillment of social duty and decision-making, taking into account not only personal but also public interests. Therefore, individuals should consider the fact that vaccination against coronavirus can protect others from harmful influences (Gostin et al., 2021). Moreover, refusal of vaccination can become a threat to others, as mentioned earlier. This is since the prevention of direct and indirect consequences of the pandemic through the development of collective immunity is considered a legitimate goal of the preventive vaccination regime.
This speech debate was engaged in refuting the opinion that mandatory vaccination violates human rights. Further, to fully justify and support the validity of the introduction of mandatory vaccination as a measure protecting the rights of citizens, this implemented regime must pursue a legitimate goal. In addition, it is necessary to bring awareness about the harmful effects of the spread of the disease and infection of people at risk, which will affect the maintenance of this innovation. In the end, it is essential to provide citizens with information that mandatory vaccination protects public health and the rights of others to a high quality of life. Therefore, this work supported the point of view under study and provided the necessary justifications.
References
Gostin, L. O., Salmon, D. A., & Larson, H. J. (2021). Mandating COVID-19 vaccines. Jama, 325(6), 532-533. Web.
King, J., Ferraz, O. L. M., & Jones, A. (2022). Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and human rights. The Lancet, 399(10321), 220-222. Web.
Sekalala, S., Forman, L., Habibi, R., & Meier, B. M. (2020). Health and human rights are inextricably linked in the COVID-19 response. BMJ Global Health, 5(9), e003359. Web.
