Peter Singer: Why Should Vaccination Be Mandatory?

Why Should Vaccination Be Mandatory?

Author: Peter Singer

Translator: Kazhvan Abhesht

Peter Singer, the Australian philosopher and professor at Princeton University, argues in this short note why vaccination should be mandatory. To this end, he refers to the laws regarding mandatory seatbelt use and then explains his point.

Fifty years ago, when laws making seatbelt use mandatory were first passed, many people seriously opposed them. Today, however, no one objects to this rule, which is itself based on common sense. Governments today can also make vaccination against COVID-19 mandatory, citing the same justifications by which they previously made seatbelt use mandatory; justifications for preserving the safety of the individual and the community.

Melbourne – I am sitting in the state of Victoria writing this text. Victoria is one of the states of Australia. In 1970, this state for the first time made wearing seatbelts in cars mandatory, becoming the first jurisdiction in the entire world to issue such an order. This law came under attack, with claims that it violated individual freedoms, but the people of Victoria accepted the law because it saved lives. Today, most parts of the world have similar laws. I cannot remember the last time someone said they wanted to drive freely without wearing a seatbelt.

Instead, today we hear that some people want to be free not to vaccinate themselves against the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease. Brady Ellison, a member of the United States Olympic archery team, says his decision not to be vaccinated was "a one hundred percent personal decision." He insists, "Anyone who says otherwise is taking away people's freedom."

The strange point here is that those laws that require us to wear seatbelts very explicitly and seriously target individual freedom. On the other hand, there are laws that require individuals to be vaccinated in order to be present in other places. These places are locations where a sick person might transmit the disease to other people. Laws regarding vaccination restrict one type of freedom in order to protect the freedom of others; that is, the freedom of those very people who want to go about their work and lives safely.

Let there be no misunderstanding. I am a complete and utter defender of laws that require the driver and passengers of a vehicle to wear their seatbelts. It is estimated that such laws have saved approximately 370,000 lives in the United States and prevented a far greater number of people from suffering serious injuries and harm. For all that, such laws are paternalistic. They force us to do something purely for our own sake. These laws violate John Stuart Mill's famous principle, which states: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." The fact that a person is compelled purely for the sake of their own interests, that is, doing this "is not a sufficient warrant."

Much has been said about this principle, especially when it is used to oppose laws enacted against actions in which no one is a victim of another person; for example, laws against homosexual relations, relationships in which two consenting adults are involved with each other, or laws against euthanasia or mercy killing. But Mill, in his time, had a greater belief that members of "civilized" societies could make rational decisions about where their interests lie. Nowadays, we cannot hold such a belief, and the fact that we cannot has justifiable reasons.

Before seatbelt use became mandatory, governments launched campaigns to inform the public about the risks of not wearing one. These campaigns did have some results, but the number of people buckling up never even came close to 90 percent or more; that is the figure for those who wear their seatbelts today in the United States, and in other countries where not wearing a seatbelt is an offense, the rate is around the same or even higher.

The reason is that when we need to protect ourselves against risks whose probability is very low, we fail and do not do a good job of it. Every time we get into a car, the chance that we will be involved in an accident so severe that we suffer an injury due to not wearing a seatbelt is very small. Despite this, since the cost of buckling up is negligible, if someone rationally considers their self-interest and does the math, they realize that not wearing a seatbelt is irrational. Those who have survived car crashes but sustained serious injuries because they were not wearing a seatbelt acknowledge this irrationality and regret it; but what good is acknowledgment and regret when it is already too late. These words also come too late for those who died in crashes without wearing a seatbelt.

Today we see a similar situation unfolding with vaccination. Brittany Cobia recently published a post on Facebook. In it, she describes her professional experience as a physician and writes about a time she was serving in Birmingham, Alabama:

"I'm admitting young healthy people to the hospital with very serious COVID symptoms. One of the last things they beg me for before we intubate them is the vaccine. I hold their hand and tell them I'm sorry, but it's too late. A few days later when I record the time of death, I hug their family members and tell them the best way to honor their loved one is to go get vaccinated and encourage everyone they know to do the same. They cry. They tell me they didn't know. They thought it was all a hoax. They thought it was all political games. They thought because their blood type is such-and-such or their skin color is so-and-so, they wouldn't get sick. They thought 'it's just the flu,' but they were wrong, and they say with all their heart that they wish they could go back, but they can't."

It is for this reason that we can justify making vaccination against COVID-19 mandatory: if we do not do this, too many people will make a decision they will later regret. One would have to be very hard-hearted to say, "It was their own mistake, let them die."

In any case, in the age of COVID, making vaccination mandatory does not violate that Millian principle known as "harm to others." Olympic athletes who do not get vaccinated pose as much of a risk to others as a car speeding down a crowded street. Allison could only make one other "personal choice," and that was to either get vaccinated or stay home. If the International Olympic Committee had announced that only vaccinated athletes could participate in the competitions, it would have reduced this heightened risk of contracting the virus for thousands of other athletes. That announcement would have been a proper justification for overriding Allison's desire to compete without receiving the vaccine.

Last month, France and Greece announced laws requiring people to provide proof of vaccination to go to the cinema, a café, or travel by train. For the reasons mentioned above, these laws do not violate anyone's freedoms. This past February, the Indonesian government became the first to make vaccination mandatory for all adults. At the time, the main source of distress was not that the government had violated its citizens' rights, but that wealthier countries had not donated the necessary number of vaccines to Indonesia so that it could enforce its law. As a result, Indonesia has now become an epicenter for the spread of the virus, and tens of thousands of unvaccinated Indonesians have lost their lives.

Translation first published by: The House of Young Ethicists

Original source: project-syndicate