From the moment science became linked — more closely than ever before — with the economy, it was to be expected that people would question vaccination policy. This is not a sign of irrationality, but reasonable scepticism. Distrust of vaccines flourishes exclusively in the advanced Western world, and indeed among the highly educated and upper social strata (consider that in Greece only 18% of medical and nursing staff have agreed to be vaccinated, ANT1) — by contrast, in Africa and Asia there is virtually no such challenge.
Even the President of the United States himself, Donald Trump, has openly stated his distrust of mass vaccinations. The challenging of vaccines began within the medical community itself in 1998, in a landmark article in the British journal “LANCET” (the most authoritative medical scientific journal in the world, in which publication is regarded — in terms of professional recognition — as second only to the Nobel Prize); there, for the first time, mass vaccination was correlated with the rise in autism. The journal later retracted the article.
Now turning to our own affairs: I listened to certain political discussions on television, in which some Members of Parliament (mainly from Potami) were almost demanding compulsory vaccination of children. Compulsory vaccination means: criminal prosecution of the unvaccinated or their guardians; removal of parental care; refusal to admit the child to schooling; fines; mass forced vaccinations in schools, and so on. Such methods of coercion against the unvaccinated have no place in the arsenal of Western legal civilisation, and those who advocate them do not belong to the political forces of the democratic spectrum. I am reminded of the saying of the French poet Paul Valéry: fascism begins with the thought that others are fools (I would therefore suggest to all the various Potami types not to send their own people to vaccinate children at schools without their parents’ consent, because I foresee slaps being handed out, and I doubt they would withstand them).
You might reasonably ask me: does parental authority over children have no limits? Yes, the authority of parental care (γονική μέριμνα) does have limits — for example, refusal of treatment for the child where the child is in present and immediate danger. However, prevention for reasons of public health, to which mass vaccination belongs, does not fall within that category; here, the parent’s right of refusal is inalienable. Of course, as everywhere, here too there are grey areas and exceptions — for example, when cases of meningitis appear (a fatal contagious disease); in that case, yes, the parents’ will may be overridden in order to carry out a medical procedure. As a rule, however, compulsory submission to mass vaccination for preventive reasons, without the consent of the person, is morally and legally unacceptable. The right to health is a right, not an obligation, and is enshrined at constitutional and European level by the principle of consent, which must always accompany it.
Greek legislation has hitherto provided for compulsory vaccination through the requirement to present the vaccination booklet at school. However, as the Ombudsman (Συνήγορος του Πολίτη) — to his credit, since few in the public sphere still dare — has advised: this practice is useful, not as a means of checking whether the child has or has not received the vaccinations, but so that the school may know which child has received which vaccinations, in order to take appropriate protective measures for pupils in the event of a dangerous epidemic. This is the only acceptable interpretation of the requirement; any other interpretation will lead to a conviction of our country in Strasbourg on matters of family life and parental care.
The statistical data show that our country is not facing any immediate epidemic problem, and so any discussion of compulsoriness or coercion is, to say the least, out of place and time. To anticipate possible objections: it is legally acceptable to impose any vaccination as a condition of entry into the country for foreign nationals; for that concerns the right of movement, which is being interfered with — not the right to a person’s health without their express consent. In the case of basic education, which is regarded as compulsory under the Constitution, the principle of consent in the right to health is violated if vaccination is imposed as a condition for the pupil’s enrolment in school.
Unfortunately, the real motivation of those who insist on compulsory vaccination is not concern for their own children, since they have already had them vaccinated and consider them safe — it is envy of those who have the courage to resist the climate of fear cultivated by the media and the neo-puritanism of society. Their self-esteem is shaken, and that is why they rage to see the dissenters give in.
Let us all try, once again, to restrain the little fascist we conceal within ourselves.
- See also the article Medical Negligence
- See also the article Residential Leases
- See also the article Airbnb Rentals
- See also the article Payment Order
- See also the article Consensual Divorce
- See also the article Certificate of Inheritance
- See also the article Renunciation of Inheritance by a Minor
- See also the article Joint Custody of a Child
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON VACCINATION POLICY
1. Can the state compel me to be vaccinated?
As a rule, no. The right to health and bodily integrity is protected by the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Oviedo Convention, with the principle of free and informed consent at its core. Mass preventive vaccination without consent is, as a rule, legally unacceptable. Exceptions are permitted only in conditions of an active epidemic posing an immediate risk to public health, and always on the basis of the principle of proportionality. Where compulsoriness is imposed by statute or ministerial decision, the citizen retains the right to bring proceedings before the Administrative Courts and, at a subsequent stage, before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
2. What can I do if my child is refused enrolment at school?
Refusal to enrol a pupil in compulsory education on the ground of non-vaccination raises serious questions of constitutionality. The parent may file an application for annulment against the refusal before the Administrative Court of First Instance, accompanied by an application for suspension of enforcement so that the child may be enrolled immediately. In parallel, there is the avenue of complaint to the Ombudsman (Συνήγορος του Πολίτη) and the Children’s Ombudsman (Συνήγορος του Παιδιού), both of which have issued relevant advisory opinions. Case-law recognises that the requirement to present the vaccination booklet serves an informative protective purpose and not exclusion from education.
3. Within what time must I challenge an administrative act?
The deadlines are short and strict. For an application for annulment before the Administrative Courts the deadline is, as a rule, sixty days from notification or full knowledge of the act. For the administrative appeal against administrative fines, separate deadlines apply, usually thirty days. The application for suspension of enforcement is filed in parallel. Expiry of the deadline renders the petition inadmissible, which is why timely contact with a lawyer is critical so that the citizen’s rights are not forfeited.
4. What documents do I need in order to challenge the compulsoriness?
The following are gathered: the administrative act imposing the compulsoriness or the fine, proof of notification, the child’s health booklet, medical certificates of any contraindications or sensitivities, correspondence with the school unit or health authority, and any relevant advisory opinion from a scientific body. Earlier decisions of administrative courts and of the ECHR on similar matters (the case of Vavřička v. the Czech Republic, among others) are also useful. The file is completed with a sworn statement by the parent and a power of attorney to the lawyer.
5. What are my chances if I take the matter to court?
The outcome depends on the specific factual circumstances: the type of vaccine, the existence or otherwise of an active epidemic, the proportionality of the measure, the existence of alternatives, and any medical contraindications. Where the measure is imposed across the board without individualised assessment and without an actual public health risk, the chances of annulment or suspension increase. Where, by contrast, there is a documented epidemic, the courts take a stricter view. In any event, the principle of consent and proportionality remain the citizen’s strongest legal tools against the State.
6. What is the role of the lawyer in such cases?
The lawyer analyses the contested act, identifies its defects (lack of jurisdiction, breach of an essential procedural requirement, abuse of power, violation of constitutional rights), drafts and files the petition, application for annulment and application for suspension, represents the client at the hearing and, if necessary, prepares an application to the ECHR. In parallel, the lawyer handles any related aspects (administrative fines, parental care issues, employment consequences). Our firm handles cases at the intersection of Administrative Law and individual rights, with an emphasis on protecting the citizen against administrative arbitrariness.