Vaccine Mandates: Law, Choice, And Anti-Vaxxers

The anti-vaccination movement has gained traction in recent years, especially with the ongoing conspiracy theories surrounding the coronavirus vaccines. While some countries have implemented laws that mandate vaccinations for children to attend school, anti-vaxxers argue that it is a matter of my body, my choice. This has led to protests and legal challenges by anti-vaxxers, who believe that their views should be protected under equality laws. However, experts argue that anti-vaccination claims are ill-founded and endanger not only their lives but also the possibility of eradicating the pandemic. As such, it is important to consider whether being against vaccinations can be against the law, especially in the context of public health and safety.

Can anti-vaxx be against the law?

Anti-vaxxers' beliefs and the Equality Act 2010

Anti-vaxxers are a small but vocal band of conspiracy theorists who are convinced that vaccines are not safe. While there is no law against being an anti-vaxxer, there are laws that prohibit unvaccinated children from attending school. For example, in 2019, New York passed a law that prohibited unvaccinated children from attending school, which led to anti-vaxx parents protesting the governor.

The anti-vaxx movement has also raised several issues for employers, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some businesses have considered making vaccinations mandatory for workers, but the legality of this approach is questionable. Employers have health and safety duties to their employees and the people they come into contact with, and they must minimize the risk of exposure to COVID-19. In certain roles, such as frontline health services or care homes for the elderly, vaccination as a precondition of work could be justified on health and safety grounds.

However, ACAS has taken the view that employers cannot require employees to take the vaccine and should listen to employee concerns. If the reasons for refusing the vaccine are unreasonable, employers can take disciplinary action. It is important to note that employees who refuse vaccinations for health or religious reasons may be protected under other provisions of the Equality Act 2010.

The Equality Act 2010 gives employees certain protections at work, including the right not to be discriminated against or harassed by colleagues based on their religion or belief. While conspiracy theories about vaccines are unlikely to be considered a philosophical belief worthy of protection under the Equality Act 2010, ethical veganism has been held as a protected philosophical belief. As a result, someone who considers themselves an ethical vegan could reasonably refuse a vaccine that contains animal products or has been tested on animals.

In conclusion, while there is no law specifically against being an anti-vaxxer, there are laws that prohibit unvaccinated individuals from certain activities, such as attending school. Additionally, employers must balance their health and safety duties with the rights of employees under the Equality Act 2010, which protects against discrimination and harassment based on religion or belief.

Anti-vaxxers' children missing school due to vaccine mandates

In recent years, there have been several instances of anti-vaxxers' children missing school due to vaccine mandates. In 2019, New York passed a law prohibiting unvaccinated children from attending school, in response to the worst measles outbreak the state had seen in decades. This law sparked outrage and protests from anti-vaxxers, who compared the mandate to segregation and the Holocaust. Similar scenarios have played out in other parts of the world, such as Italy and Texas, where vaccine mandates have been implemented to protect public health.

In Italy, a mandatory vaccine law was introduced to boost immunisation coverage after a surge in measles cases. However, the country's current government, made up of the far-right League and the populist Five Star Movement, has sent mixed messages on vaccinations. While they passed an amendment allowing parents to self-certify instead of providing a doctor's note, they have also spread false claims about the dangers of vaccines. As a result, Italian children have missed school due to confusion over vaccine policies.

In Texas, a measles outbreak occurred in a mostly Mennonite congregation, leading to the shutdown of at least two Mennonite schools for disinfection. While many Mennonite families do not send their children to public schools, the outbreak underscored the impact of medical freedom choices on public health. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the country's top health official and an anti-vaccine activist, dismissed the Texas outbreak as "not unusual," reflecting a larger issue of misinformation and distrust in authorities.

The debate around vaccine mandates in schools is complex and multifaceted. On the one hand, public health officials emphasize the importance of herd immunity and the safety of vaccinations. On the other hand, anti-vaxxers argue that vaccine mandates infringe on personal freedom and parental authority. As seen in the examples above, the implementation of vaccine mandates can have unintended consequences, such as children missing out on their education or being exposed to unvaccinated classmates.

To address these challenges, some experts advocate for providing accurate information to parents and respecting their autonomy in making healthcare decisions for their children. By empowering parents with data about the risks and benefits of vaccinations, they can make informed choices that consider the well-being of their children and the broader community. However, it is also crucial to recognize the potential impact of anti-vaxxer sentiments on public health, especially during disease outbreaks. Balancing individual freedoms with the collective responsibility to protect public health remains a delicate task for policymakers and health authorities.

Anti-vaxxers' use of pseudolegal notices of liability

Anti-vaxxers have been using "notices of liability" to threaten consequences for COVID-19 measures. These documents, which are 16 to 21 pages long, have been delivered to public officials, including mayors, city councillors, and school principals, and even members of the media. The notices allege that board members will be held "personally liable" if vaccination against COVID-19 becomes a requirement for licensing, claiming that vaccine mandates violate laws such as the Criminal Code of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, legal experts, including law professor Debra Parkes, have stated that these "notices of liability" have no legal effect and are not a valid legal term. Parkes suggests that the term "notice of liability" is simply an attempt to use a legal-sounding term to imply some form of responsibility under the law. Kyla Lee, a criminal defence lawyer, also points out the lack of legal force behind these notices, explaining that there is no single court with jurisdiction over all the issues alleged in the documents.

Despite having no legal value, the use of these notices has spread from fringe anti-vaccine groups to health professionals, and they continue to be promoted by anti-vaccine activists and those opposed to COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Anti-vaxxers' impact on herd immunity

Herd immunity is a situation in which a large part of a population is immune to a particular disease due to vaccination or previously contracting the illness and developing antibodies. This indirectly helps ensure the protection of the remaining population, reducing the potential to transmit it to others and preventing an outbreak.

Anti-vaxxers are a niche group that can compromise the efficacy of vaccines by refusing to get vaccinated. Their actions can have a detrimental impact on herd immunity, as they increase the risk of contracting the disease for everyone, including those who are unable to get vaccinated.

For example, in 2019, New York experienced the worst measles outbreak in decades, which led to a new law prohibiting unvaccinated children from attending school. This outbreak was likely due to stalled vaccination rates, demonstrating the negative consequences of anti-vaxxer beliefs on herd immunity.

The impact of anti-vaxxers on herd immunity is significant, especially when considering diseases with high infant mortality rates, such as whooping cough, or highly contagious diseases like measles. By refusing vaccinations, anti-vaxxers not only put themselves at risk but also endanger the health and safety of their communities, particularly those who are vulnerable or unable to get vaccinated.

To mitigate the impact of anti-vaxxers on herd immunity, public health professionals must continuously study the topic and develop strategies to increase vaccination rates. Additionally, effective public messaging that highlights the consequences of vaccine-preventable diseases can play a crucial role in improving vaccination coverage and, ultimately, achieving herd immunity.

Anti-vaxxers' punishment for refusing COVID vaccinations

While there is no specific law against being anti-vaccination, there are consequences for refusing to comply with vaccine mandates.

In the case of COVID-19, vaccine mandates have been a topic of much debate, especially in the military. From August 2021 to January 2023, all active-duty service members in the US were required to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. However, Republican lawmakers have since pushed back against this mandate, and in February 2023, service leaders were instructed to rescind all COVID-19 vaccination policies by March 17, 2023. Despite this, individuals who simply refused the vaccines, even after repeated warnings, could still face punishment under other regulations.

In the US military, if a service member refuses an order to get vaccinated, their commander can issue an administrative reprimand or a non-judicial punishment (NJP). Administrative reprimands are written complaints that go into a service member's permanent file and can significantly affect their career advancement and promotions. NJPs vary with rank and can range from a lowering in rank to a reduction in pay or discharge.

In the Marine Corps, commanders are allowed to separate a Marine for "refusing inoculation," and this is often categorized as a "serious offense," similar to other offenses like drug abuse or sexual assault. This categorization allows the Marine Corps to strip away the 'honorable' characterization of a Marine's service.

In addition to the military, certain professions, such as healthcare workers, may also face consequences for refusing COVID-19 vaccinations due to health and safety duties to minimize the risk of COVID-19 exposure. While employers generally cannot require employees to be vaccinated, certain roles, such as frontline health services or care homes for the elderly, may justify vaccination as a precondition of work on health and safety grounds.

Outside of the military and healthcare settings, there are also social consequences for anti-vaxxers. For example, in New York, a law was passed amid a measles outbreak that prohibited unvaccinated children from attending school. This law upset many anti-vax parents, who felt that their children were being deprived of an education.

Overall, while there may not be specific laws against being anti-vaccination, there are various social, legal, and professional consequences for those who refuse COVID-19 vaccinations.

Frequently asked questions