#3 The Legal Profession This Week - Mandatory Vaccinations

Zay said:

My opinion on compulsory vaccinations starts with the premise that laws in general are created to stop people doing something that is classified as "wrong", such as murder or theft. The only example where I can think of the government imposing restrictions on individuals to actually do something (and I'm happy to hear other people's views/examples) is for everyone to legally wear a seatbelt which we can view as an exception to the rule. Therefore, I struggle with the idea that we should be allowing the government to then create laws around what we should be doing as individuals because it creates a dangerous precedent around what the government may be able to make us do in the future.

Secondly, from a practical viewpoint, I don't see how this is feasible. What sanctions will people face for not having the vaccine? If this means individuals cannot then go into shops deemed as non-essential now, how is anybody going to check this and who is going to pay for these checks? E.g., if we use a shopping centre as an example, this will mean that the shopping centre will have to have security on every door and will have to check people have had the vaccine... how are they going to cover this cost and check? Also, as the article suggests, there is the risk of discrimination here and the government would have to have clear guidelines as to who is exempt. I have seen Pimlico Plumbers (don't quote me on that) specifically say that all employees will need the vaccine, and if they can't have it, such as pregnant women, then they can't work for the company. But then again, from an ethical point, how will we have clear guidelines and force vulnerable groups, such as patients on chemotherapy, to have the vaccine when nobody knows the side effects on these groups as they cannot participate in trials.

Another point may be from an ethical viewpoint, we shouldn't be forcing people to actually have vaccine because it's not for the government to decide what should/shouldn't be going into people's bodies. Whilst the government legislate on things such as food health and safety and ultimately decide what is/isn't safe for us to consume, people still retain the overall control to choose what to consume and what they won't, and why should this control be taken away from individuals over a vaccine...

Edit: I know the article talks about making vaccines compulsory in the legal profession specifically, but thought this was a related, interesting topic

Click to expand...

Neville Birdi said:

Thank you for the response - and you raise some really thought-provoking points! I thought it worth adding this to flesh out the other side of the debate (not necessarily the position I hold!), and to encourage other TCLA members to contribute.

First, I think, broadly speaking, you're right regarding why we have laws. I am but a mere philosophy student, but I am sure there is a broad enough consensus amongst law students (I'll inevitably regret writing that...) that laws are there to typically enforce moral behaviour (...yep, I can just about hear the battle cry of law students who have studied jurisprudence - be gentle please!).

However, I think there may be a few more legal examples of the state enforcing laws that make us do something (as opposed to restricting us from doing something). For example, we are obligated to wear seatbelts, as much as we are obligated to pay our fair share of taxes. Another example is the law that one must send their child to school from the age of 5 to 16.

Additionally, you could employ some linguistic hijinks: instead of saying:

1. 'The government/law obligates me to wear a seatbelt when driving a vehicle'.

You could instead rephrase it to:

2. 'The government/law prohibits me from not wearing a seatbelt when driving a vehicle'.

Here, one has subtly changed the kind of duty owed - so, depending on the phrasing, one can think of laws as obligations or prohibitions. Hence, the government really makes us do stuff all the time: we have to pay our taxes, go to school, wear a seatbelt, and, perhaps, be vaccinated. This line of argument would see compulsory vaccinations as fairly similar (although, naturally, one can make other philosophical arguments against it) to our other legal obligations, and that to include compulsory vaccinations is not too far a stretch (again, not necessarily so, but one might make such a case).

Second, I think your point on practicality is spot on. It is completely unfeasible for businesses, like shopping centres to screen every customer who walks through the door. Furthermore, I agree with your point that it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that the government should be able to legislate on what we do with our bodies (although more on this below). However, one may argue that you can 'mandate' vaccinations by simply restricting people's access to certain services, where vaccinations would be relevant.

For example, restricting access to higher education on the basis of vaccination (in order to prevent the spread of disease amongst young adults), restricting access to the NHS (as the choice to not vaccinate entails the risk of larger, preventable health complications which will cost the service money which could have been avoided), and so on. Note, restriction does not mean prevention, but it will certainly make taking the vaccine more attractive in order to access, shall we say, unrestricted services. As an aside, I am completely aware of how insidious this may sound - but again, I am just highlighting arguments that the other side might have.

To address your ethical concern that there are vulnerable groups who can't take the vaccine - yes, I wholeheartedly agree that we should not discriminate against those individuals and that they should be allowed access to the aforementioned services (if not even given extra help). However, simply not choosing to vaccinate (because one does not want to) is not being part of a vulnerable group. Therefore, one may not see a problem with allowing those who cannot have the vaccine to access certain opportunities and disallowing those who won't have the vaccine to access certain opportunities. However, you are right: clear guidelines are needed to determine exemptions, and when instigating such a revolutionary policy such as compulsory vaccinations, we do need substantial evidence prior to enforcement (therefore, naturally, until such a time as we have that data, we may have to wait).

Finally, regarding your point about putting things in people's bodies. Philosophically, it is quite hard to find convincing arguments to allow the government to impinge to such an extent on individuals' autonomy. However, there is already precedent for it. For example, approximately 6 million people in the UK are supplied with artificially fluoridated water. These people drink their tap water, which, whether they like it or not, has had extra fluoride added into it. Here, one's choice to drink non-fluoridated water is overruled, and one could argue that the government (tin foil hats out everyone...) are controlling what you put into your body.

Now, naturally, you can buy a water filter, or simply not drink the tap water, but this example serves, to some extent, to analogously support the view that the government should have some control over what goes into its citizens' bodies. If this is established, then the question is simply one of degrees.

I've gone on for far too long - however, I think it is worth pointing out a few philosophical arguments in favour of compulsory vaccinations. It would be far too onerous to spell them all out, so I'll give them in (heavily abridged) standard form.

For utilitarianism:

P1) Compulsory vaccinations produce a net-utility gain for the individual/society.
P2) What produces the most utility in a given situation is what is moral.
C1) Compulsory vaccinations are moral.

The utilitarian's argument for compulsory vaccinations is probably the most convincing one, although invoking the categorical imperative, as you can do with deontology is also philosophically strong.

For deontology (there are so many variations here, but I'll just form one):

P1) It is morally wrong to cause harm to others.
P2) To not be vaccinated is to cause harm to others.
P3) To prevent a moral wrong from being perpetuated is to engage in a morally good action.
P4) To order the compulsory vaccination of individuals is to prevent harm unto others.
C1) To order the compulsory vaccination of individuals is a morally good action.

There are also others in the form of virtue ethics (if you want to claim that something related to vaccinations strives towards moral character), natural law theory (if you believe that the right to be in a society that is vaccinated is conferred by nature), or if you feel particularly inclined, you can always invoke the divine. Yes, I am fully aware that these last few are more...challenging; however, if you are interested in this area, have a look at some of the philosophical literature surrounding this field!

I just want to sign this off by saying that this reply is just here to provoke discussion with yourself and the other forum members. You've raised some really interesting points and it would be great to have other forum members chip in and discuss this. Also, to reiterate the disclaimer above - these views are not my own personal one's, this is simply just a philosophical discourse! Please remember to keep your tone, and your content, civil and appropriate.

Final-final point I promise! Deploying little bits of philosophy or deductive/inductive reasoning in my law firm interviews really assisted me - I think, in moderation, it is a fantastic thing to bring into the interview room, and, if you have some free time, building up these skills outside the ACs will help too!

Click to expand...

BFK said:

I am filling out an application, and I am up to the convictions part. it says 'Do you meet the character suitability requirements of the SRA?’ I have never been convicted of any sort of crime so does that mean I put no?

Click to expand...