W v UNITED KINGDOM - 10787/84 [1985] ECHR 112 (2 December 1985)

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

	[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



	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.

European Court of Human Rights