Measles Vaccination Approved: Protecting Children First

Children who are cared for in day-care centers must be vaccinated against measles. This has been decided by the Federal Constitutional Court. Although there is an encroachment on fundamental rights, this is reasonable.

More than two years ago, in March 2020, compulsory vaccination against measles came into force. And as of today, one thing is certain: it will stay that way. Parents who want to register their child in a day care center or with a childminder must prove that it has been vaccinated against measles or has already had measles.

Several parents had sued, also on behalf of their children. The state-mandated vaccination is an unconstitutional encroachment on the physical integrity of children and their parental rights. But the Federal Constitutional Court did not agree. In his view, compulsory vaccination is constitutional. It protects a large number of people, especially those who are considered to be particularly at risk. These are, for example, infants or pregnant women who cannot be vaccinated.

One argument: the high risk of infection

The eight judges of the 1st Senate referred to the high risk of infection with measles. If the disease progresses severely, people could die. This results in a special duty of the state to protect society as a whole.

This aspect plays a particularly important role in the decision, according to constitutional lawyer Steffen Augsberg, a member of the German Ethics Council. This led to the judges arguing that the number of people vaccinated was not sufficient. “In any case, that is the constitutionally acceptable position of the legislature,” said Augsberg. “To achieve so-called herd protection, we must take measures that can reasonably go beyond what might be termed ‘voluntary response’.”

encroachment on fundamental rights is not disproportionate

The Federal Constitutional Court certainly recognizes that compulsory vaccination is a significant encroachment on the fundamental rights of children and parents. But this is not disproportionate. The vaccination would usually only cause mild symptoms and side effects. Real vaccine damage is extremely unlikely. Those who do not want to have their children vaccinated can organize their care in private. This remains possible even without vaccination.

In its decision, the Federal Constitutional Court then makes a legally binding specification. This has to do with the fact that combination vaccines are administered in practice: vaccinations are not only given against measles, but also against mumps, rubella and chickenpox. This limit must remain within the scope of compulsory vaccination.

No comparison to a corona vaccination obligation

The question arises: Can one derive basic information on the subject of compulsory vaccination from the decision, for example with regard to the controversially discussed compulsory corona vaccination? Law professor Augsberg warns against hasty conclusions. The Covid-19 vaccines are far less researched than the measles vaccines.

Much of what concerns side effects is still unclear, says Augsberg. In this respect, one cannot “draw a very clear and unambiguous line and say: because they consider compulsory vaccination against measles to be constitutional, they will necessarily do the same with Covid-19. We just learned that there is a whole range of There are uncertainties. Let’s just think about the serious side effects that you can’t just brush aside in the form”.

File numbers: 1 BvR 469/20, 1 BvR 470/20, 1 BvR 471/20 and 1 BvR 472/20