The need to purchase the vaccine against COVID-19 by some of the persons could be described as discrimination from the angle of human rights, starting from the precondition that the vaccine should be free for all. This fact can create the feeling of inequality among the people. The opinion was stated by jurist Ana Racu, human rights expert, in IPN’s public debate “Vaccination: paid or free, voluntary or mandatory, with or without a choice?”. Ana Racu noted the vaccines should be accessible in private clinics too, but this should not be to the detriment of the population with limited incomes.
According to the expert, many companies can afford to vaccinate the employees at their own expense. But social balance should be anyway respected so that vulnerable persons without incomes do not remain outside the vaccination campaign as every life matters. The inequality conditions can lead to greater “social quakes” and such situations should be anticipated and kept under control.
As regards the access to vaccines in psychiatric and neurological hospitals and penitentiaries, Ana Racu said the rules from outside can be adopted in closed institutions too. Regardless of the status, the persons have equal rights. The problem resides not in the choice of the type of vaccine, but in its accessibility. The question about the choice will be raised when all the platforms, countries, the state, the citizens who are abroad combine efforts to ensure the necessary vaccines are delivered.
Informing is important for any vaccination campaign. The people should be openly told about the necessity of administering the vaccine and the possible side effects and risks. The information about the purchase and shipmen of vaccines should be known, noted Ana Racu.
In another development, the human rights expert said the vaccination of frontline health workers is justified. The criteria, stages and persons covered by the vaccination plan are similar to those in other states.
According to Ana Racu, the person can refuse vaccination, but when the person refuses any type of medical assistance, the doctor should explain the consequences so that the person realizes them, while the refusal should be recorded.
The public debate “Vaccination: paid or free, voluntary or mandatory, with or without a choice?” is the 176th installment of IPN’s project “Developing Political Culture through Public Debates” that is supported by the Hanns Siedel Foundation.
