British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> W v UNITED KINGDOM - 10787/84 [1985] ECHR 112 (2 December 1985)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1985/112.html
Cite as: [1985] ECHR 112
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
|
COUNCIL OF EUROPE EUROPEAN
COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS |
||
|
|
||
|
DECISION OF THE
COMMISSION |
||
|
|
||
|
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY |
||
|
|
||
|
Application No.
10787/84
by W
against the United
Kingdom |
||
|
|
||
|
The European Commission of Human
Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1985, the following members being
present: |
||
|
|
||
|
MM. C.A. N0RGAARD, President G.
JORUNDSSON G. TENEKIDES S. TRECHSEL B. KIERNAN A.S. GOZUBIJYUK A. WEITZEL
J.C. SOYER H.G. SCHERMERS H. DANELIUS G. BATLINER J. CAMPINOS Sir Basil
HALL
Mr. H.C. KRUGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Art. 25 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms;
Having regard to the application
introduced on 28 November 1981 by W against the United Kingdom and
registered on 30 January 1984 under file No. 10787/84;
Having regard to the report
provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission;
Having deliberated; |
||
|
|
||
|
Decides as follows: |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
10787/84 |
||
|
|
||
|
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British
citizen, born in 1921, and is resident at Isle of Wight. The facts, as
submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant's son Paul was born
in 1962 and was perfectly healthy. In June 1962, Paul was given an
injection against diptheria, tetanus and whooping cough. He suffered a
severe reaction to the vaccine, which left him severely mentally and
physically disabled.
Paul attended a special school
from the age of 5 until 11, when the school became unable to cope with him. He is currently in the home
of his parents, who have to provide him with constant care. He is unable
to attend any educational or training establishment and the only alternative is
to admit him to a long-stay hospital.
The applicant was obliged to take
an administrative post, adverse to his prospects of promotion in order to
help his wife care for their son.
The applicant has received
£10,000 compensation under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979, the award
being made on 23 November 1979. |
||
|
|
||
|
COMPLAINTS
The applicant submits that the
failure of the United Kingdom to warn of the risks of vaccination has
deprived his son of his rightful place in society and disrupted the
private and family life of himself, his wife and his son.
He alleges that the vaccination
of his son was not voluntary, since he was not warned of the exact extent
of risk and since pressure is exerted on parents through public criticism
of those who do not vaccinate their children and who are therefore said to
contribute to the risk of an epidemic.
The applicant further complains
that current publications on vaccination are misleading and that the
Government has failed to fulfil its promise to provide a comprehensive
compensation scheme to replace the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. He
argues that since the United Kingdom recommends vaccination to protect
public health in general, it is under a moral and legal duty to compensate
those who suffer inevitably as a result of vaccination.
The applicant invokes Art. 8 of the
Convention. |
||
|
|
||
|
THE LAW
The applicant complains that the
failure of the United Kingdom Government to warn of the risks of
vaccination constitutes a violation of Art. 8 of the
Convention. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
10787/84 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
It is true that Art. 8 of the
Convention secures to everyone the right to respect for their private and
family life and home.
However, the Commission refers to
its decisions in Application No. 7154/75, Association X. v. the United
Kingdom, D.R. 14 p. 31 and in Application No. 8542/79, Godrey v. the
United Kingdom, D.R. 27 p. 94. In Association X. v. the United Kingdom,
the Commission held:
" ... that, in the context of the
present case where a voluntary vaccination scheme which is designed to
protect the health of society and which is subject to a proper system of
control to minimise the risks involved is in issue, there is no
interference with the right to
respect for private and family life. It stresses, in particular, the fact
that the State does not compel parents to vaccinate their children, or to
be vaccinated themselves, eithsv directly, or indirectly by imposing
sanctions on those who refuse vaccination. The State recommends
vaccination and provides facilities for anyone who wishes to avail himself
of the services offered. In this regard, the Commission cannot accept that
the consent given by parents is not a proper consent. The Commission is of
the opinion that, although the parental decision to have their children
vaccinated may not be based on a technical appreciation of the specific
risks involved, there exists a general common knowledge that vaccination
schemes involve certain risks.
Moreover, the Commission
considers that it is legitimate for the State to take the view that checks
for contraindications are matters best left to clinical judgment.
Accordingly the Commission holds that, in a voluntary vaccination scheme,
Art. 8 does not impose an obligation on the State to provide specific
detailed information to parents on either contra-indications or the risks
associated with particular vaccines."
The Commission has examined the
facts and complaints as submitted by the applicant. It remains of the view
however that the vaccination system is not compulsory. Parents are aware
of the general nature of the risk and are able to refuse to have their
children vaccinated if they so wish. It therefore follows that there was
no interference by the State in the applicant's right to private and
family life. In such a case, the establishment of compensation is
essentially a social security measure which falls outside the scope of the
Convention.
It follows therefore that the
applicant's complaints under Art. 8 must be rejected as incompatible
ratione materiae within the meaning of Art. 27, para. 2 of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Secretary Co the Commission |
President
of the Commission |
||
|
|
|||