Human history has witnessed various pandemics and mass deaths due to diseases such as the Plague, Typhus, Influenza, Cholera, Smallpox, Leprosy, Tuberculosis, and AIDS. These diseases have caused devastation in societies, similar to the destructive power of an atomic bomb. These diseases not only affect the individual but also pose a threat to public health. For these diseases, scientists have not only focused on finding cures but also on developing preventive measures, such as vaccination. Today, vaccination is the only way to fight many diseases, particularly irreversible ones like rabies.

While the importance of vaccination for public health has been scientifically proven, the number of people unwilling to be vaccinated is increasing every day in our country. One of the main reasons for this increase is the fear that vaccines are not safe. There are widespread beliefs, such as vaccines for mumps, measles, and rubella causing autism. However, these beliefs, which lack scientific support, are nothing more than superstitions. The Ministry of Health has stated, “Numerous studies have been conducted to investigate whether there is a relationship between vaccines and autism. To date, no direct link has been found between vaccines and autism” [1], clarifying that this is a misconception.

In our healthcare legal system, where such an important protective measure as vaccination is left to the individual’s discretion, it would not be wrong to say that public health is at risk. According to Article 72, Paragraph 2 of the Public Health Protection Law No. 1593, and by reference to Article 52 of the same law, mandatory vaccination is only required for individuals who contract diseases such as cholera, plague, and malaria. Therefore, unless an individual contracts such a disease, according to Article 70 of Law No. 1219 and Article 5, Item (d) of the Patient Rights Regulation, the consent of the person or their guardian is required for any medical intervention unless stated otherwise in the law. The legal provisions indicate that, under normal circumstances, a person who does not wish to be vaccinated cannot be forced to receive a vaccine. Article 17, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution states that medical interventions cannot be performed without the individual’s consent unless explicitly stated in the law. Since the law does not explicitly mandate vaccination, this situation seems to comply with the Constitution. However, when we examine this under Article 56 of the Constitution, which grants everyone the right to live in a healthy environment, we could argue that it violates the Constitution. If we accept that the best way to fight an infectious disease is to prevent its occurrence, it is clear that an individual’s refusal to be vaccinated will put the health of others at risk. Therefore, it would not be difficult to argue that the individual’s right to live in a healthy environment is violated.

The lack of mandatory vaccination is not only a threat to public health but also a concern regarding children’s rights, as vaccination is subject to parental consent. According to Article 339 of the Turkish Civil Code, parents are responsible for taking care of their child’s welfare. Even though a parent who refuses to vaccinate their child may believe they are acting in the child’s best interest, scientific data shows how important vaccination is for a person’s health. The eradication of smallpox through vaccination is one of the proofs of this. Therefore, the decision to protect the child’s health should not be left to the parents. This is legally possible. According to the second principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, “Children should be specially protected and should grow up under conditions that ensure physical, mental, moral, spiritual, and social well-being and dignity. Laws enacted for this purpose should consider the child’s best interests.” The state is required to protect the interests of children. Article 41 of our Constitution obliges the state to establish necessary institutions for the protection of children. The Child Protection Law, adopted on May 3, 2005, was prepared in line with this principle, which is also adopted by our Constitution. In Article 4 of the law, under the heading “Basic Principles,” the protection of the child’s rights to life, development, and protection is guaranteed, and Article 5 includes health measures as part of the precautionary measures for the child. Therefore, the child’s best interests should be prioritized, and vaccination should not be left to the discretion of the parents.

Even though mandatory vaccination may interfere with individual rights and freedoms, the superior norms that need protection are public health and the protection of children, who cannot legally decide for themselves. According to the Constitution, fundamental rights and freedoms can only be limited by laws. Therefore, passing a law that makes vaccination mandatory would not only intervene in individual rights and freedoms but also serve the protection of vulnerable children and public health.

Furthermore, it is important to note that preventive healthcare, which saves both the state and individuals from significant economic burdens, aims to prevent illness through services provided to the community, and when an individual falls ill, treatment is provided. Vaccination is one of the most fundamental services in this approach. This way, individuals are saved from long treatment processes and costly medical expenses. It is evident that vaccination leads to savings in both the economy and time.

In conclusion, mandatory vaccination is crucial, especially for the protection of children’s health and public health, and it also allows for savings in time and the economy.

Av. Şefik ZİROĞLU & Öğr. Yasemin TOPSAKAL

[1] https://www.saglik.gov.tr/TR,3454/hepatit-b-basin-aciklamasi-22062015.html – June 22, 2015