According to the Justice Director, a bill could end the “toxic discussion” on compulsory vaccination. The SVP is amazed at Fehr’s advance, but also sees positive points.
Finds that the political process must be tackled to make vaccination compulsory: District President Jacqueline Fehr.
The vaccination campaign in Switzerland is still making slow progress: So far, according to the Federal Office of Public Health, around 70 percent of the entire population have been vaccinated with two doses. In the canton of Zurich it is 69 percent according to the situation bulletin of the health department. In view of these relatively low numbers, the discussion about compulsory vaccination has been simmering for some time.
Now the Zurich government president Jacqueline Fehr (sp.) Rushes forward in an interview with the Tamedia newspapers: The subject of mandatory vaccinations must be “brought to the ground”, she says – also to reduce fears.
A compulsory vaccination needs a legal basis. “If we start working on this basis now, parliament could discuss it in the spring and the people could vote in the summer,” said Fehr. «We would be ready for the next autumn – provided that a vaccination is still required. We should tackle this process. “
At the request of the NZZ, Fehr specified her statements: The federal government should work out a “model ready for decision in the form of a regular bill”. “The toxic discussion, in which everyone imagines something different about mandatory vaccination, can be brought to an end by means of a specific design. And it can be made clear that if a vaccination is compulsory, nobody will be forcibly vaccinated. ” The right to physical integrity is guaranteed at all times.
None Fines for the unvaccinated
Fehr already has quite a clear idea of what compulsory vaccination could look like in Switzerland. She told the NZZ that three conditions had to be met before she could agree to one: First, the relevant law had to be limited to three years and exclusively to the coronavirus. Second, compulsory vaccination must be epidemiologically necessary at the time it comes into force. And thirdly, the focus must be on vaccinating and not on penance.
“I am against buses from the point of view of the judicial director,” says Fehr. If you don’t pay a fine, you first of all trigger a great deal of bureaucratic effort. “And in the end, the people who don’t pay end up in the Bachtel prison to serve their substitute custodial sentence.”
Such a process would be a pointless loop, believes Fehr. “The recalcitrant non-payers would generate a lot of effort, endanger other people in the prison and would still be unvaccinated in the end. The horse game would start all over again. “
So how should the state deal with people who absolutely do not want to be vaccinated? Fehr suggests using the certificate requirement, which already exists today, as a sanction.
What is missing, however, are instruments to address the unvaccinated. “The focus should be here, giving the cantons the authority to request the non-vaccinated to be vaccinated with a vaccination appointment.”
“The compulsory vaccination basically creates the basis so that the authorities can come into direct contact with unvaccinated people.” In addition to the request and appointment for vaccination, further steps are conceivable, according to Fehr: reminders after missing the appointment, telephone or personal follow-up or a call for vaccination advice.
“Anyone who does not react to official measures such as vaccination requests or vaccination advice is considered unvaccinated and remains excluded from some public offers as long as the vaccination is mandatory.”
The current discussion is causing great damage to society, says Fehr. “Of course, compulsory vaccination is unattractive and not exactly liberal. But it is better than two-class medicine, unethical triage or even more anger of the vaccinated against the unvaccinated. “
“Precisely because it is a big step for our society, we should take it on the democratic path,” said Fehr. «And this one is long. So that there is not suddenly an undemocratic quick exercise, we should look a little ahead this time. “
Health director Natalie Rickli (svp.) Had expressed reluctance to a possible vaccination requirement at a media conference on Wednesday. You believe in personal responsibility, says Rickli. “But in January we will see what Omikron actually means for us. I just believe that at some point the majority of the population will no longer be willing to accept all these restrictions because of relatively fewer people. ” This will have to be discussed in the next year.
“Compulsory vaccination would be a last resort”
Martin Hübscher, the president of the SVP parliamentary group in the Zurich Cantonal Council, has also taken note of Fehr’s proposal. “It amazes me that she leans out so far as Zurich’s district president,” he says. “This is a federal matter, and if the federal government wanted vaccination compulsory, it could have introduced it a long time ago.”
The fact that one is fundamentally discussing the question of compulsory vaccination and wanting to involve the people in a vote is not a bad thing per se. On another page, however, is whether compulsory vaccination is expedient. “We are not always a priori against compulsory vaccination, but it has to remain an ultima ratio,” says Hübscher. A high level of immune protection is the top priority, but that can primarily be achieved with persuasion and not by prescription from above.
“It works particularly well in the canton of Zurich,” continues Hübscher. “The vaccination coverage is high, and if you also take into account those who have recovered, a very large part of the population is already immunized.”
“Covid-19 will not be the last pandemic”
Markus Späth, the president of the SP parliamentary group in the Zurich Cantonal Council, supports his councilor. «I see it the same way as Jacqueline Fehr. We have to think about compulsory vaccination. ”
For him, however, it is less about Corona than about future waves of infection. “We don’t have to break our knees now, but unfortunately it is to be expected that Covid-19 will not have been the last dangerous global disease,” says Späth. It is therefore important that Switzerland create the legal basis for compulsory vaccination for future pandemics in a democratic way and, if necessary, with a referendum.
However, Corona also made it clear that other paths also lead to the goal. “I’m the president of a special-purpose association for an old people’s home,” says Späth. “With persuasion, incentives and light pressure, we were able to ensure that only three of all nursing staff are not vaccinated. Practically all of the residents are also vaccinated and boosted. “
Medical ethicist has doubts
The compulsory vaccination is not only controversial at the political level. In an interview with the NZZ, the medical ethicist Tanja Krones expressed doubts about its usefulness. “Compulsory vaccination in democratic states means that not vaccinating yourself is punished. For example, with fines or a difficult day-to-day life, ”said Krones.
«We have to ask ourselves: Will mandatory vaccination really ensure that enough people get vaccinated? I’m afraid not.” There are various groups that do not allow themselves to be vaccinated: conspiracy theorists, freedom-lovers and people who distrust the state.
She worries about people in socially precarious situations and the mentally ill who have been somewhat forgotten in Switzerland. “With a compulsory vaccination, these people would again suffer disadvantages and be punished for something for which they are not able to do anything.”
You have to win people’s trust, said Krones. “In my opinion, with a general compulsory vaccination we would endanger society and possibly not even achieve the goal of a higher vaccination rate.”