The constitutionalist Morana: “Compulsory vaccines possible but with law”

The possibility of introducing compulsory health treatment, such as vaccination, both in a generalized way for everyone and ‘for the burden’ of Macron, ie by focusing on the identification of the activity, is provided for by our Constitution. “But there are limits. It must take place with a law or in any case with a primary source, therefore with the involvement of Parliament, when there is an interest in the health of the community to be protected”. He talks about it with Adnkronos Donatella Morana, professor of public law at the University of Rome Tor Vergata and professor of health law at Luiss. Morana theoretically distinguishes two possible health policy choices: “that of making treatment compulsory in a generalized way, or that of merely recommending it. There are countries that, in relation to other vaccinations, different from that against Covid -19, have achieved herd immunity through the recommendation, therefore trying to stimulate the voluntary adhesion of citizens; other countries have instead preferred to resort to the imposition of vaccination as an obligation. These are, however, not definitive choices, which must be evaluated and re-evaluated in relation to the concrete epidemiological situation “. The compulsory nature of vaccination “may, among other things, be provided for by law only for certain categories, in a reasonable manner and with all the precautions that must always be taken towards individuals at risk”. Another solution may be to “foresee vaccination as a burden”. Could the burden be extended to students and professors? “The burden for the subject becomes an element that the legal system can decide to introduce in order to prevent contagion with respect to certain activities or specific environments. Obviously, also in this case – notes the jurist – there must always be a reasonable justification for basis of the legislative choice. But it is not a discriminatory measure in itself, as long as it is addressed to entire categories of subjects and not to single individuals “. Here is the difference between obligation and burden: “in the first case, subjects are required to get vaccinated regardless of the specific activities they want to dedicate to; in the second, vaccination is only required if you intend to carry out, for example, a certain activity or attend certain environments . But in both cases – the jurist specifies – a normative intervention is necessary. In other words, a law is necessary that establishes it because it affects the choice of the individual with respect to their own care. In short – she concludes – the intervention of Parliament is essential. “. (by Roberta Lanzara)