Challenging Vavřička: Questioning Compatibility of the Mandatory Tetanus Vaccination with ECHR

The compatibility of mandatory vaccinations with human rights has become a very current issue with the COVID-19 pandemic and the Vavřička ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. This ruling has faced criticism for not conducting examinations related to disease and vaccines based on direct scientific evidence. In this analysis, an assessment will be made based on direct scientific evidence about tetanus and its vaccine.

The prevailing reason for mandatory tetanus vaccination is to protect the health of the vaccinated individual. Competent adults have the right to refuse treatment. This rule also applies to preventive medical interventions, including tetanus vaccination. As a rule, parents are entitled to give consent for medical interventions on their children. If an immediate and serious threat permanently endangers the minor's life, medical intervention can be carried out against the parents' will. The limitation of parental autonomy is more disputed when the minor's life is not immediately threatened. With respect to tetanus vaccination as a preventive medical intervention, it does not eliminate an immediate and serious risk of harm. As a result, interference with the parent's discretion on tetanus vaccination as a preventive medical intervention should be evaluated for its compatibility with the current legal approach to medical interventions on minors and patient rights.