The guarantee of human dignity in Article 1 GG has been the foundation of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany: as an end in themselves, human beings are the basis and the goal of law. They may never be treated by state measures as mere means for any purpose (even if it is for the common good). The dignity of the individual subject cannot be weighed against other fundamental rights, it is absolute.

An obligation to vaccinate would interfere with the protection of the right to self-determination guaranteed by the guarantee of human dignity with regard to medical interventions in the bodily-mental integrity and the physical integrity of the person concerned protected by Article 2 (2) of the Basic Law. It is also possible that the freedom of faith and conscience under Article 4 of the Basic Law is impaired.

1. With regard to the encroachment on Article 2 (2) of the German Basic Law, the constitutionality of an obligation to vaccinate is to be doubted because of the questionable nature of the purpose and the lack of suitability, necessity and appropriateness.

a) In this respect, the choice of a legitimate purpose is already unclear. The following can be considered: herd immunity, interruption of infection chains, avoidance of deaths and severe courses of disease (and thus the relief of the health system), ending the pandemic.

b) The suitability of a compulsory vaccination is to be clearly denied, at least with regard to the first two purposes mentioned under a). Regarding the avoidance of severe courses of disease, it must be pointed out that the conditionally approved vaccines lose their effectiveness after a very short period of time (3 to 6 months) and provide therefore no long-term suitability. Furthermore, their effectiveness against new virus mutations cannot be assumed (cf. Argument 1 / 3.). For the same reasons, a general obligation to vaccinate is also unsuitable to end the pandemic.

c) Necessity would only be affirmed if there were no other, less restrictive means to achieve the objectives that would be equally suitable. Since the suitability is already questionable, considerations in this regard are hypothetical at best: Such considerations would concern, for example, the protection of vulnerable groups, the improvement of the health care system or the (if possible) timely adaptation of vaccines. In the drafting of the compulsory vaccination, less severe options should also be considered: for example, a broad exemption for medical indications even in the case of existing medical uncertainties (autoimmune diseases, dispositions for vaccine damage – previous allergies or damage caused by vaccinations, known heart diseases, etc.), which allow an individual doctor-patient assessment.