The Constitutional will resolve by sentence if a minor should be vaccinated in case of discrepancy between the parents | Society

The constitutional Court will resolve by sentence if the rights of minors or elderly people who were vaccinated against the covid-19 by court order, after there was a discrepancy that affected their parents or guardians, as the case may be, about whether they should undergo vaccination. These are four minors and three incapacitated elderly people, whose cases have special constitutional relevance, according to the criteria of the court, which for this reason has agreed that these resources be submitted to the plenary session.

In the cases of minors, the discrepancy about whether or not they should be vaccinated occurred between the parents. In these circumstances, they raised the conflict judicially and in all cases the vaccine was administered by decision of a judge or court. The criterion applied in the resolutions issued was that vaccination should be favored, as it was understood that this meant a greater guarantee for the health of the minor and of the people around him.

Resources relating to disabled people who were vaccinated by court order refer to the elderly in residences and whose guardian considered that they should not undergo vaccination. In these cases, the discrepancy occurred with the center, which obtained authorization from the judge. Here too, the consideration that the vaccine meant a greater guarantee for the affected person and the rest of the residents or workers of the respective centers prevailed.

The Constitutional Court has admitted these resources for processing because it understands that they pose a problem that affects the principle of equality, the fundamental right to physical and moral integrity, the right to health protection and personal and family privacy, on which it does not there is constitutional doctrine. He has also considered that the matter raised in these amparo appeals transcends the specific cases object of challenge because it raises a legal question of relevant and general social repercussion.

See also  The Board calls for vaccination in the absence of attendance at the call for this Monday

The appeals filed by the appellants are based on the thesis that the inoculation of a drug in the experimental phase must always be voluntary. They consider, therefore, that the judicial resolutions that oblige to be vaccinated are contrary to the fundamental rights recognized not only in the Constitutionbut also in international conventions and treaties.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.