How Bodily Autonomy Can Fail Against Vaccination Mandates: The Few vs. the Many.

Humans have been a communal species since inception and continue to be so to this day. Because of this, if even a small scale of a measured population becomes severely ill, the entire remaining population and surrounding area is thrown into absolute chaos. In fact, we have seen these circumstances throughout history and in the recent COVID-19 pandemic yet, some of us have forgotten that the only way this chaos can be curbed, is by enacting a mandatory vaccination policy. Since COVID-19 however, vaccination mandates have become an uneasy topic of conversation in the United States for essentially one main reason, some U.S citizens do not like to be told what to do with their body and what to place inside it, further believing their bodily autonomy to be absolute. Data shows that this ideology recently became more widespread from an increase of mistrust of government and pharmaceutical companies, and from political beliefs and affiliations. Nevertheless, what the data also shows is that these same individuals were asserting their right to bodily autonomy against a vaccination mandate in an unduly aggressive manner, and on a very erroneous understanding of the governing jurisprudence, policies and modern scientific data surrounding said vaccination mandates and large scale disease outbreaks. This article therefore aims to provide a clear and extensive understanding of the proposition that, while bodily autonomy is favored in other aspects of life, this right can fail with respect to deadly disease outbreaks and mandatory vaccinations as there is presently no other practical or feasible alternative. Specifically, this article introduces and/or reminds the U.S. public of well-established governing case law, relevant historical and scientific information and the pertinent legislative authority surrounding vaccines, bodily autonomy, and vaccination mandates.

The Compatibility of Mandatory Vaccination with the European Convention on Human Rights: Implications for a National Vaccination Policy.

This contribution examines the compatibility of mandatory vaccination with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) through an analysis of the relevant ECHR rights and related case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). By focusing on Article 8 (Right to Private Life), Article 2 (Right to Life) and Article 9 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion) ECHR, we formulate conditions under which mandatory vaccination legislation is justified. With that, this analysis aims to provide national legislators with guidance on responsible legislative policy. Additionally, this article discusses the legal framework underlying the Dutch vaccination policy, including developments therein since COVID-19. Furthermore, the role of the European Union in the context of vaccination is briefly discussed. The importance of an extensive societal and parliamentary debate before implementing a mandatory vaccination policy is stressed, as is the need for proportionality in enforcement.

Education increases patience: Evidence from a change in a compulsory schooling law.

I investigate the causal effect of education on time preferences. To deal with the endogeneity of education, I exploit exogenous variation in education imposed by a Turkish school reform that raised compulsory education from five to eight years. I find that education causes individuals to make more patient inter-temporal choices but does not induce them to report being more patient. I also provide evidence that the effect of education on patient inter-temporal choices does not operate through changes in financial well-being.

Vaccination Mandates-An Old Public Health Tool Faces New Challenges.

This Viewpoint discusses how federal vaccine requirements have helped thwart vaccine-preventable diseases as well as how growing public resistance to vaccines and judicial and legislative limits to vaccination mandates may change that.

Cancer Screening after the Adoption of Paid-Sick-Leave Mandates.

BACKGROUND: By the end of 2022, nearly 20 million workers in the United States have gained paid-sick-leave coverage from mandates that require employers to provide benefits to qualified workers, including paid time off for the use of preventive services. Although the lack of paid-sick-leave coverage may hinder access to preventive care, current evidence is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about its relationship to cancer screening. METHODS: We examined the association between paid-sick-leave mandates and screening for breast and colorectal cancers by comparing changes in 12- and 24-month rates of colorectal-cancer screening and mammography between workers residing in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) that have been affected by paid-sick-leave mandates (exposed MSAs) and workers residing in unexposed MSAs. The comparisons were conducted with the use of administrative medical-claims data for approximately 2 million private-sector employees from 2012 through 2019. RESULTS: Paid-sick-leave mandates were present in 61 MSAs in our sample. Screening rates were similar in the exposed and unexposed MSAs before mandate adoption. In the adjusted analysis, cancer-screening rates were higher among workers residing in exposed MSAs than among those in unexposed MSAs by 1.31 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 2.34) for 12-month colorectal cancer screening, 1.56 percentage points (95% CI, 0.33 to 2.79) for 24-month colorectal cancer screening, 1.22 percentage points (95% CI, -0.20 to 2.64) for 12-month mammography, and 2.07 percentage points (95% CI, 0.15 to 3.99) for 24-month mammography. CONCLUSIONS: In a sample of private-sector workers in the United States, cancer-screening rates were higher among those residing in MSAs exposed to paid-sick-leave mandates than among those residing in unexposed MSAs. Our results suggest that a lack of paid-sick-leave coverage presents a barrier to cancer screening. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute.).

Freedom, Rights, and Vaccine Refusal: The History of an Idea.

We analyzed how activists opposed to vaccination have used arguments related to freedom, liberty, and individual rights in US history. We focused on the period from the 1880s through the 1920s, when the first wave of widespread and sustained antivaccination activism in this country occurred. During this era, activists used the language of liberty and freedom most prominently in opposition to compulsory vaccination laws, which the activists alleged violated their constitutionally protected rights. Critics attacked vaccination with liberty-based arguments even when it was not mandatory, and they used the language of freedom expansively to encompass individuals' freedom to choose their health and medical practices, freedom to raise their children as they saw fit, and freedom from the quasicoercive influence of scientific and medical experts and elite institutions. Evidence suggests that in recent years, vaccine refusal has increasingly been framed as a civil right. We argue that this framing has always lain at the heart of resistance to vaccination and that it may prove consequential for the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(2):234-241. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306504).

Some Nurses Still Resist Vaccination Against COVID-19.

Vaccine safety is their main concern.