As of mid-June, 73.8 million doses of the coronavirus vaccine have been administered to UK citizens, which positions our country in eighth place worldwide. According to the Centre of Disease Control and Prevention, the vaccine prompts the body to produce T and B lymphocytes, the specific white blood cell responsible for coronavirus immunity. The vaccine requires two shots, and the programme prioritised those in the most susceptible positions, such as those over a certain age, those with compromised immune systems, or anyone who worked with vulnerable personnel. The concept of ‘vaccine passports’ has been thrown around by politicians and in the media, and this article will explore the advantages, disadvantages, and legality of introducing such documentation. The UK’s Human Rights Act (HRA) 2015 sets out sixteen human rights which will also be touched on throughout this article.
The Case For Vaccine Passports
Requiring proof of vaccination works as a powerful incentive to receive the vaccine; it is likely anyone reading this article knows someone who has had the shot because they ‘just want to travel’. This technique plays on people’s desire to travel, and in turn results in greater levels of immunity throughout the country.
In addition to this, necessitating the vaccine to travel would theoretically place less pressure and burden on foreign hospitals and their health services: the AstraZeneca vaccine has a 100% protection rate against hospitalisation. Article 2 of the HRA maintains one’s right to life; vaccine passports could be seen as a reasonable and proactive step to protect people from a real and immediate risk.
The Case Against Vaccine Passports
Obviously, there are copious advantages to vaccination passports, yet it still must be considered whether these passports could be considered ‘discriminatory’, as described by the governmental vaccine minister Nadhim Zahawi. The Equality and Human Rights Commission says certificates to prove who is vaccinated could create a "two-tier society whereby only certain groups are able to fully enjoy their rights". Although the vaccine has been confirmed as safe for the majority of people, anyone who has a severe allergy to any of the ingredients, or who have certain autoimmune conditions are advised against receiving the shot. Moreover, the safety of the vaccine is still being trialled for women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, as well as those who have tested positive for Covid-19. The clear issue here is how vaccine passports could be introduced without discriminating against these people.
Furthermore, this does not take into account the number of people who simply do not wish to receive the Covid-19 vaccination. Many argue against being vaccinated due to the speed at which the vaccine was introduced, questioning its long term health effects. Another common consensus queries the necessity of the vaccination if most people are reported to recover with minimal health impacts, and 33% of cases being asymptomatic in the first place.
It remains unlikely that everyone who is eligible to safely receive the vaccine will in fact receive it, which brings into question the concept of autonomy, and Article 8 of the HRA, which is the right to private and family life, home and correspondence. The right to a private and family life must be considered due to the fact that the vaccine is optional, and one possesses the autonomy to make decisions about their own health if they have the mental capacity to do so. However, Article 8 is not an absolute right, and can be restricted if considered proportionate by the European Court of Human Rights. Due to the fact that the vaccine is supposed to protect lives, this right may be restricted in light of Article 2 (the right to life) being an absolute right. Interestingly, although Article 8 is a qualified right, Article 9 is an absolute right, and protects the right to have freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It would therefore not be permitted to enforce vaccine passports if vaccination goes against one’s religious or protected beliefs. This circulates back to Zahawi’s concerns surrounding discrimination. Article 14 protects UK citizens from discrimination, and therefore the enforcement of vaccine passports upon those who cannot medically or religiously take it would be in breach of this particular right.
Looking to the Future
As illustrated, there are both advantages and disadvantages to the introduction of vaccine passports, and the question remains whether the incentive of travel and protection of foreign health services outweighs the discriminatory nature of the documentation. One obvious way around this issue would be the requirement of a negative test in lieu of vaccine documentation, which is a possibility being discussed at length within Parliament due to the fact that it also works to protect Article 2 of the HRA. It is unclear how vaccine passports may be established at this stage. The vaccination programme in the UK is continuing and runs parallel with the UK Government’s roadmap to remove the lockdown and social contact restrictions. However, as discussed, the notion of vaccine passports give rise to a number of human rights and discriminatory issues and therefore, as of yet, cannot be introduced.
Comments