Mandatory vaccination from the perspective of the Federal Supreme Court
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/762 |
Resumo: | Objective: To analyze descriptively the conclusions established in the decisions handed down by the Federal Supreme Court in the judgment of Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality 6586 and 6587 and of the Extraordinary Appeal 1267879 that deal, respectively, with the mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 and the refusal to immunization by philosophical and religious convictions. Methods: exploratory research based on bibliographic review and document analysis, in primary and secondary sources, notably in relation to the texts of international agreements, information, data, reports extracted from Brazilian government agencies, including decisions handed down in higher courts. Results: research has shown that mandatory vaccination has long been a reality in Brazil, and has provision for in several legal instruments. At no time did such provisions have their legality and legitimacy actively and emphatically questioned. Conclusion: the study points out that the Brazilian Constitutional Supreme Court, when carrying out the necessary balance of interests and principles, in particular the intangibility of the human body and the inviolability of the home, and the realization of the collective right to health, contended that the compulsory nature of the vaccine as a way of meeting the public interest in the eradication of the virus responsible for the pandemic, it does not offend the constitution, reinforcing that the obligation of the vaccine cannot be understood as forced vaccination, being guaranteed to the administered the right of refusal to undergo immunization. |
id |
FIOCRUZ-3_a07eb8d916ad76392f9a8896e39c80dd |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br:article/762 |
network_acronym_str |
FIOCRUZ-3 |
network_name_str |
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Mandatory vaccination from the perspective of the Federal Supreme CourtVacunación obligatoria desde la perspectiva del Supremo Tribunal FederalA vacinação obrigatória na perspectiva do Supremo Tribunal FederalVacunaciónObligatoriedadCOVID-19Supremo Tribunal FederalVacinação ObrigatoriedadeCOVID-19 Supremo Tribunal FederalVaccination ObligatorinessCOVID-19Federal Supreme CourtObjective: To analyze descriptively the conclusions established in the decisions handed down by the Federal Supreme Court in the judgment of Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality 6586 and 6587 and of the Extraordinary Appeal 1267879 that deal, respectively, with the mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 and the refusal to immunization by philosophical and religious convictions. Methods: exploratory research based on bibliographic review and document analysis, in primary and secondary sources, notably in relation to the texts of international agreements, information, data, reports extracted from Brazilian government agencies, including decisions handed down in higher courts. Results: research has shown that mandatory vaccination has long been a reality in Brazil, and has provision for in several legal instruments. At no time did such provisions have their legality and legitimacy actively and emphatically questioned. Conclusion: the study points out that the Brazilian Constitutional Supreme Court, when carrying out the necessary balance of interests and principles, in particular the intangibility of the human body and the inviolability of the home, and the realization of the collective right to health, contended that the compulsory nature of the vaccine as a way of meeting the public interest in the eradication of the virus responsible for the pandemic, it does not offend the constitution, reinforcing that the obligation of the vaccine cannot be understood as forced vaccination, being guaranteed to the administered the right of refusal to undergo immunization.Objetivo: analizar descriptivamente las conclusiones establecidas en las decisiones dictadas por el Supremo Tribunal Federal en la sentencia de Acciones Directas de Inconstitucionalidad 6586 y 6587 y del Recurso Extraordinario con Apelación 1.267.879 que tratan, respectivamente, de la vacunación obligatoria contra COVID-19 y la negativa a la inmunización por convicciones filosóficas y religiosas. Metodología: investigación exploratoria basada en revisión bibliográfica y análisis de documentos, en fuentes primarias y secundarias, notablemente en relación con los textos de acuerdos internacionales, información, datos, informes extraídos de agencias gubernamentales brasileñas, incluyendo decisiones tomadas en tribunales superiores. Resultados: la investigación ha demostrado que la vacunación obligatoria es una realidad desde hace mucho tiempo en Brasil, y está prevista en varios instrumentos legales. En ningún momento se cuestionó activa y enfáticamente la legalidad y legitimidad de tales disposiciones. Conclusión: el estudio señala que la Corte Suprema Constitucional brasileña, al realizar el necesario equilibrio de intereses y principios, en particular la intangibilidad del cuerpo humano y la inviolabilidad del hogar, y la realización del derecho colectivo a la salud, argumentó que la obligatoriedad de la vacuna como forma de atender el interés público en la erradicación del virus responsable de la pandemia, no ofende la constitución, reforzando que la obligación de la vacuna no puede entenderse como vacunación forzada, garantizándose a el administrado el derecho de negarse a someterse a la inmunización.Objetivo: analisar descritivamente as conclusões fixadas nas decisões proferidas pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal no julgamento das Ações Direta de Inconstitucionalidade (ADIs) nos 6.586 e 6.587 e do Recurso Extraordinário com Agravo nº 1.267.879 que tratam, respectivamente, da vacinação obrigatória contra a COVID-19 e a recusa à imunização por convicções filosóficas e religiosas. Metodologia: pesquisa exploratória baseada na revisão bibliográfica e na análise documental, em fontes primárias e secundárias, notadamente de textos de acordos internacionais, informações, dados, relatórios extraídos de órgãos governamentais brasileiros, incluindo decisões prolatadas em tribunais superiores. Resultados: a investigação demonstrou que a vacinação obrigatória, desde há muito, é uma realidade no Brasil, estando prevista em diversos diplomas legais. Em tempo algum, tais dispositivos tiveram sua legalidade e legitimidade questionadas de maneira ativa e enfática. Conclusão: o estudo aponta que a Suprema Corte Constitucional brasileira, ao realizar a necessária ponderação de interesses e princípios, em especial a intangibilidade do corpo humano e a inviolabilidade do domicílio, e a efetivação do direito coletivo à saúde, pugnou que a compulsoriedade da vacina como forma de atendimento ao interesse público de erradicação do vírus responsável pela pandemia não ofende a Constituição, reforçando que a obrigatoriedade da vacina não pode ser entendida como vacinação forçada, sendo garantido ao administrado o direito de recusa em se submeter à imunização.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz Brasília2021-03-18info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/76210.17566/ciads.v10i1.762Iberoamerican Journal of Health Law; Vol. 10 No. 1 (2021): (JAN./MAR. 2021); 233-247Cuadernos Iberoamericanos de Derecho Sanitario; Vol. 10 Núm. 1 (2021): (ENE./MAR. 2021); 233-247Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário; v. 10 n. 1 (2021): (JAN./MAR. 2021); 233-2472358-18242317-839610.17566/ciads.v10i1reponame:Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online)instname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)instacron:FIOCRUZporhttps://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/762/799Copyright (c) 2021 Jordão Horácio da Silva Limahttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessLima, Jordão Horácio da SilvaLima, Jordão Horácio da SilvaLima, Jordão Horácio da Silva2021-03-18T14:39:36Zoai:ojs.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br:article/762Revistahttp://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.brPUBhttp://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/oaicadernos.direitosanitario@fiocruz.br2358-18242317-8396opendoar:2021-03-18T14:39:36Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Mandatory vaccination from the perspective of the Federal Supreme Court Vacunación obligatoria desde la perspectiva del Supremo Tribunal Federal A vacinação obrigatória na perspectiva do Supremo Tribunal Federal |
title |
Mandatory vaccination from the perspective of the Federal Supreme Court |
spellingShingle |
Mandatory vaccination from the perspective of the Federal Supreme Court Lima, Jordão Horácio da Silva Vacunación Obligatoriedad COVID-19 Supremo Tribunal Federal Vacinação Obrigatoriedade COVID-19 Supremo Tribunal Federal Vaccination Obligatoriness COVID-19 Federal Supreme Court |
title_short |
Mandatory vaccination from the perspective of the Federal Supreme Court |
title_full |
Mandatory vaccination from the perspective of the Federal Supreme Court |
title_fullStr |
Mandatory vaccination from the perspective of the Federal Supreme Court |
title_full_unstemmed |
Mandatory vaccination from the perspective of the Federal Supreme Court |
title_sort |
Mandatory vaccination from the perspective of the Federal Supreme Court |
author |
Lima, Jordão Horácio da Silva |
author_facet |
Lima, Jordão Horácio da Silva |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Lima, Jordão Horácio da Silva Lima, Jordão Horácio da Silva Lima, Jordão Horácio da Silva |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Vacunación Obligatoriedad COVID-19 Supremo Tribunal Federal Vacinação Obrigatoriedade COVID-19 Supremo Tribunal Federal Vaccination Obligatoriness COVID-19 Federal Supreme Court |
topic |
Vacunación Obligatoriedad COVID-19 Supremo Tribunal Federal Vacinação Obrigatoriedade COVID-19 Supremo Tribunal Federal Vaccination Obligatoriness COVID-19 Federal Supreme Court |
description |
Objective: To analyze descriptively the conclusions established in the decisions handed down by the Federal Supreme Court in the judgment of Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality 6586 and 6587 and of the Extraordinary Appeal 1267879 that deal, respectively, with the mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 and the refusal to immunization by philosophical and religious convictions. Methods: exploratory research based on bibliographic review and document analysis, in primary and secondary sources, notably in relation to the texts of international agreements, information, data, reports extracted from Brazilian government agencies, including decisions handed down in higher courts. Results: research has shown that mandatory vaccination has long been a reality in Brazil, and has provision for in several legal instruments. At no time did such provisions have their legality and legitimacy actively and emphatically questioned. Conclusion: the study points out that the Brazilian Constitutional Supreme Court, when carrying out the necessary balance of interests and principles, in particular the intangibility of the human body and the inviolability of the home, and the realization of the collective right to health, contended that the compulsory nature of the vaccine as a way of meeting the public interest in the eradication of the virus responsible for the pandemic, it does not offend the constitution, reinforcing that the obligation of the vaccine cannot be understood as forced vaccination, being guaranteed to the administered the right of refusal to undergo immunization. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-03-18 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/762 10.17566/ciads.v10i1.762 |
url |
https://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/762 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.17566/ciads.v10i1.762 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/762/799 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Jordão Horácio da Silva Lima https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Jordão Horácio da Silva Lima https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz Brasília |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz Brasília |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Iberoamerican Journal of Health Law; Vol. 10 No. 1 (2021): (JAN./MAR. 2021); 233-247 Cuadernos Iberoamericanos de Derecho Sanitario; Vol. 10 Núm. 1 (2021): (ENE./MAR. 2021); 233-247 Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário; v. 10 n. 1 (2021): (JAN./MAR. 2021); 233-247 2358-1824 2317-8396 10.17566/ciads.v10i1 reponame:Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) instname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) instacron:FIOCRUZ |
instname_str |
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) |
instacron_str |
FIOCRUZ |
institution |
FIOCRUZ |
reponame_str |
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) |
collection |
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
cadernos.direitosanitario@fiocruz.br |
_version_ |
1798942495785091072 |