he is Constitutional Court (TC) speak out for the compulsory vaccination for boys and girls based in the National Immunization Plan (PNI), as reported by the Ministry of Health (Minsal).
The events date back to May 26, 2022, when the Puerto Montt Family Court He ordered the parents of two children (3 and 5 years old) to give their children all the mandatory vaccinations, in all pending or delayed doses, after accepting a precautionary measure sent by an official from Puerto Montt Center Hospital onwards.
The applicants (parents) did not agree with the sentence, because they subscribe to another anthroposophic system of medicine, presenting an appeal before the appeal court of Puerto Montt.
However, to comply with the decision and the pending appeal, an appeal for inapplicability due to unconstitutionality was submitted to the Constitutional Court, based on the Health Code , which establishes the mandatory nature of the vaccinations that were administered by the court in the first instance. .
Regarding the preferential right of parents to educate their children, the Court says: “In addition to the right to decide, we have an obligation to make the decisions that best suit their interests.”
He says that “people’s freedom of conscience cannot be opposed to any legal regulation that they consider to be against their beliefs – this would undermine the rule of law -, even less so when the such a face in an individual only, but including the third. parties.”
In this sense, it holds that it is intended to exempt children from the administration of the vaccinations that are in accordance with the law only in response to the beliefs of the parents, “without considering the impact this would have on both the fundamental rights to which children in cars are entitled (whose respect and protection, by the way, is the responsibility of parents), and the rights of the rest of the population.”.
The Court ensures that “the challenged orders are aimed at protecting the welfare of the children in the community in which they work, which shows the general face of the welfare of the child as a mandate that focusing on the State. In other words, Vaccinating every boy and girl not only protects their life, integrity and health as an individual, but also every boy and girl in the social environment of which they are a part.
As for the argument that the decision to vaccinate children rests with the parents and not with the court, he says that the charge is “based on a wrong vision of the role of parents in relation to their children: although the parents are the first calls to make decisions about what is most suitable for the life and development of their children, more than the right to decide, we have a duty to make the best decisions to suit their interests.
The Court also states that “to the extent that these decisions affect the fundamental rights of their children (and other members of the community), the decision-making possibilities are reduced, as only those compatible with the respect and protection of these rights and interests. it will be valid.”
When this happens “there is a legislative decision as a result of which a State policy is expressed in detail aimed at protecting the fundamental rights of children; such a legal mandate precedes the decisions that are in principle the responsibility of the parents.”
2024-10-25 19:03:00
#Constitutional #Court #rules #compulsory #vaccination #boys #girls
