After reading this question about the possibility to impose mandatory vaccinations in the US I wondered what is the situation around the world apart from the US.
Mandatory treatment is forbidden by the deontological code in every medical branch. It was also forbidden in the Nuremberg Code.
But, are there countries that include medical ethics in their laws? Are there countries that consider rules coming from deontological codes as part of the Human rights?

As mentioned in the updated title I am not referring to established vaccinations for children, but about vaccinating adults with newly developed vaccines. I assume that adults can make their own evaluation on specific cases and specific vaccines.

  • 1
    As I understand it, the Nuremberg code is about medical experimentation and not about approved medications. Involuntary medical procedures would be covered elsewhere. – o.m. May 15 at 13:17
  • @o.m. I updated the title because in the current situation we have recent vaccines approved only under the emergency rules and we are talking about vaccinating adults which legally are responsible for themselves and can make their own evaluation on specific cases and specific vaccines. – FluidCode May 15 at 13:22
  • 1
    @FluidCode, that doesn't answer my objection. The Nuremberg code is about experimentation, while most talk about mandatory vaccination assumes at least an emergency use authortization by the regulatory agencies. Nuremberg would enter the picture if they were forcing people to join the trials. – o.m. May 15 at 13:32
  • 1
    @FluidCode, you were asking about laws, so of course legal terms are relevant here. – o.m. May 15 at 13:40

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 explicitly disallows such treatment:

Part 2 - Civil and political rights
Life and security of the person

  1. Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment:
    Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.

This could, however, be challenged in the courts. The question of whether water fluoridation by councils fell foul of this right was brought to the Supreme Court. The Court found (judgement) that adding fluoride to drinking water did count as a medical treatment, and that the impracticality of avoiding fluoridated water meant that the public was not being given an adequate right to refuse. However, the Court ruled that the council's actions were a "justified limit" on that right. A similar argument could perhaps be made for mandatory vaccination, if the public health consequences were found to outweigh the rights of the individual, however this seems unlikely.


The Nuremberg code you mention is about medical experimentation on human subjects. That is legally distinct from the mandatory use of already-approved medical procedures.

As to your question, in Germany the law on the protection against infectious diseases (§20(6) and (7) IfSG) allows the federal and state government to make vaccination mandatory, except for those individuals where a medical reason exists not to vaccinate. At least one state is requiring measles vaccinations for children and teachers or childcare workers, but the regulation is new and a transition period is still running.

  • Why is everyone concentrating the attention on the Nuremberg code which is just one of the many codes that forbid forced treatment? You are ignoring the deontological codes in your answer. – FluidCode May 15 at 14:01
  • 5
    @FluidCode, because the prominent inclusion of experimental protocols makes your question look misleading to me. Regarding other medical ethics, the question in your subject line was "are there any ..." and that can be answered by example. – o.m. May 15 at 14:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .