The polarized debate over vaccines sees the Italian Constitutional Court taking an important step into the discussion, shortly before the last notable rebellion against compulsory vaccination in Italy. Only a few days ago, in fact, the Mayor of Rome, Ms. Raggi (together with the members her Council, unanimously), approved a motion contradicting the mandatory nature of the 10 (originally 12) vaccinations, made compulsory for school-age children by a recently enacted Italian law. Nevertheless, the “rebels” in Rome probably did not take into the appropriate account the decision of the Italian Constitutional Court, which ruled in favor of the vaccines imposition under Italian law.
The Court – in deciding a constitutional challenge brought by the Veneto Region against the imposition of vaccination by the State – explains its views in a straightforward way.
First of all, the Court makes it very clear that, when it comes to vaccines, fundamental health care rights are involved and, to such regard, no difference is constitutionally acceptable between different areas of the Italian territory. In other words, when a healthcare measure is imposed by a national law in the public interest, Regions and local authorities do not have a say about it.
Furthermore, and most importantly, the Court clarifies that – also taking into account the worrisome drop in vaccination rates in recent years – the choice of tightening up legislation to compel vaccinations is not unreasonable.
True, persuasive techniques – such as the ones that Veneto Region would like to implement – can, ideally, represent a better option, but only when the herd immunity result is somehow guaranteed. Conversely, when vaccination rates drop, obligations and sanctions by law – as the California example showed – are not only reasonable (and constitutional), but much more effective.
Well, when the going gets tough, the law gets going. And that’s reasonable, Italian Constitutional Court says.