This study analyzes article 12 of the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. The “right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”.This article is analyzed in the context of herd immunity and mandatory vaccination. The analysis has been conducted through critical discourse analysis and analyzed through the terms of fairness, morality and obligations in former research at issue.The aim of this paper is to shed light on the flaws of article 12 which fails in its purpose to protect every human being, especially the most vulnerable. This may happen when individuals are allowed to act according to their own personal interests in ways that can negatively affect the public health especially for those who cannot be vaccinated.It is established by law that no one can be forced to get vaccinated. This paper analyzes if there are other incentives to motivate people to get vaccinated to protect others.Through a fairness perspective, it is argued that the individual should get vaccinated to protect others. This can help to protect those individuals who cannot get vaccinated. Those who have the capacity have a duty to do more. The effort of getting vaccinated is minimal and the resulting herd immunity means that even those who are not vaccinated are protected from infection. There are several studies that proves that individuals are more inclined to contribute to the common good if it is done with fairness and equality.Morality as a concept lacks a common or universal definition. Therefore, morality cannot be used as a reason or a motive.The “right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health” is protected by article 12. This paper argues that those who cannot get immunized through vaccination are not included in this protection. The same article also protects the individual’s right to make their own decision regarding their immunity. The decision of abstaining vaccination when otherwise able to get immunized can mean life or death for those that do not have the option to get vaccinated. The consequence of individual decision-making becomes unclear. The state, as the party responsible to uphold the covenant, cannot protect the most vulnerable since the right to bodily integrity weighs heavier than the common good. When more people choose not to get vaccinated the most vulnerable are less protected from disease and infection. The unprotected cannot claim accountability from the state. The outdated covenant protects only some of the people, not all of them as it is supposed to do. Especially the most vulnerable.