ArticleActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2021
COVID-19 Compulsory Vaccination and the European Court of Human Rights.
Article in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vaccination Hesitancy Among Greek Orthodox Christians: Is There a Conflict Between Religion and Science?Journal of religion and health · 2023Article
- Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare personnel in the era of new SARS-CoV-2 variants.Vaccine · 2022Article
- COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among people with chronic neurological disorders: A position paper.European journal of neurology · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Between August and September 2021, the European Court of Human Rights rejected three requests for interim measures against France and Greece's compulsory vaccination statutes against COVID-19. Due to the procedural nature of the interim measures, however, the status of vaccine mandates against SARS-CoV-2 under the European Convention of Human Rights has not been addressed. The paper argues that COVID-19 compulsory vaccination is consistent with both the text and the original understanding of Article 8 of the Convention. Moreover, considering pertinent case law on medical mandatory treatments, COVID-19 vaccine mandates should also square with the European Court of Human Right's "living instrument" doctrine. For this reason, it is expected that the European Court of Human rights will uphold COVID-19 vaccination programs. At the same time, it would be beneficial if more Council of Europe member states triggered Article 15 derogation mechanism in order to make an even stronger case for fast-track developed vaccines and contrast vaccine hesitancy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.