Controversy over common vaccine requirements: Why Parliament’s decision cannot be a question of conscience – Politics

The turning point in the vaccine debate took place in late November. A Fukushima moment: The extension of the vaccination policy based on voluntary action suddenly seemed unacceptable, and the residual risk is very high.

As a form of compensation, compulsory shovels should be decided independently by members of parliament, without parliamentary committee discipline. Like euthanasia, it is a medical-ethical issue, according to then-appointed Justice Minister Marco Bushman (FDP). Therefore, MPs, under Section 38 of the Basic Law, must follow their inner voice: “They are the representatives of the people as a whole, not subject to orders and instructions, but only subject to their conscience.”

There can be no stable government without a stable coalition

Just because MPs are subject to their own conscience does not mean that they should only follow their conscience in every vote. And the fact that they are not bound by orders and instructions does not mean that they should generally reject the announcements of the parliamentary committee leadership. Conversely: MPs get mandated by their parties. The people they represent did not at least elect them as representatives of these parties. Sectional morality reflects this responsibility. There can be no stable coalition without the unity of parliamentary committees and no stable government without a stable coalition.

[Wenn Sie die wichtigsten News aus Berlin, Deutschland und der Welt live auf Ihr Handy haben wollen, empfehlen wir Ihnen unsere runderneuerte App, die Sie hier für Apple- und Android-Geräte herunterladen können.]

Now, after all, this democratic power structure is about to be suspended for compulsory vaccination. They say that infusion is a violation of fundamental rights and that it actually comes under the skin; This width is a novelty in Republican history. Therefore, the ethics of the individual must be counted, not the primacy of politics.

The majority must stand together

Probably a miscalculation. The need for a common vaccine can only be constitutionally justified if there are no mild ways to escape the lockdown trap. It has to be well-established, somehow necessary. But if it is necessary to protect life and health under the rule of law, would it not be negligent to dispose of it only in the form of a vote of conscience?

Mandatory vaccination is certainly a protocol and legal, but above all an excellent political question. If the majority chooses it, they should stand together. If there is no internal agreement then it is better to leave it as it is.