[ad_1]
BRASILIA – O Federal Supreme Court (STF) tends to adopt a position in favor of compulsory vaccination, if its effectiveness is proven, in two separate judgments that should be taken to the Plenary of the Court in the coming months, one of them on COVID-19 and another on whether parents have the right not to administer to their children the vaccines that are part of the official vaccination schedule defined by the health authorities.
This Monday 26, the president Jair Bolsonaro said, in a message to the Supreme Court, that vaccination “is not a question of justice, but a health problem ”. Last week, the President of the Court, Minister Luiz fuxHe had said that the prosecution on the issue will be “important” and “necessary.” For Bolsonaro, on the other hand, “a judge cannot decide if they will give you the vaccine or not, it does not exist.”
The two immunization trials have no date to go to plenary. The mandatory application of vaccines against covid-19, when ready and tested, entered the court’s horizon due to four new actions, moved by parties last week, the majority opposed to the statements of Jair Bolsonaro, against compulsory vaccination. The rapporteur is the Minister Ricardo Lewandowski, which has already requested information from Planalto.
Before this ruling on the covid-19 vaccination, however, the Supreme Court must decide, in another action, to be informed by the minister. Luis Roberto Barroso, if parents can stop vaccinating their children, based on philosophical, religious, moral and existential convictions. The common point between the trials is the clash between the collective right to health and individual freedom not to undergo vaccination. In contrast to these principles, the current composition of the STF tends to favor the collective good, that is, compulsory vaccination.
Although Barroso does not continue with his position, it is assumed that he will vote in favor of the fact that children cannot stop taking the vaccine provided for in the official vaccination calendar determined by the health authorities. Ministry of Health. “I cannot anticipate my vote, but my vision is to value science and technical knowledge,” he said commenting on it.
The specific action that will be discussed – with widespread repercussions on other processes in Brazil – was presented by a family from São Paulo who believes that the child should not be vaccinated, after the Public ministry they have obtained a court decision requiring vaccination.
Barroso told the Political Issue / Statistics who wants to bring the action to plenary later this year. In addition to the discussion on freedoms versus the right to health, one of the aspects that the rapporteur must debate in this first trial – and which may return in the process of vaccination against covid-19 – is the politicization of the issue, taking into account that of the anti-vaccine movement in Brazil, especially after the pandemic. This ruling, therefore, will bring important signals about the legality of the State to impose or not the mandatory vaccination against the pandemic virus.
In the actions filed by the parties, there is no formal request for the STF to oblige the covid-19 vaccination. Among the lawsuits presented, the PDT he wants the court to recognize the competence of the states and municipalities to determine whether vaccination of the population is mandatory. On the opposite line, the PTB, from the base of government support, requests that this possibility be declared unconstitutional.
At this point, the tendency is for the Supreme Court to establish that states and municipalities are autonomous to define the vaccination policy against covid-19. This decision must go along the same lines as the one taken in April, when the Court ruled that mayors and governors can take regulatory and administrative measures related to the pandemic, and it is up to the federal government to respect these measures adopted.
Behind the scenes of the STF, the reading is that the court should, at the very least, pave the way for states and municipalities to impose mandatory vaccination, but it is also possible that a definition towards mandatory covid-19 vaccine has already been adopted, if and when there is an immunizer with guaranteed effectiveness.
Yesterday, in a message to supporters, Bolsonaro made the purchase of a vaccine against covid-19 by Brazil conditional on certification and without “haste.” “We want to find a solution for the case. It seems that everyone says that the vaccine that took the least time to date was four years, I don’t know why to run it, “he said.
In addition to this debate, the actions presented by the parties PCdoB, PSOL, PT, PSB, Citizenship me Sustainability network They ask the court to prevent the federal government from carrying out any act that hinders the advancement of any vaccine research in the country, in addition to requiring vaccination planning.
The debate over the government’s role in advancing studies and the prerequisites for the adoption of a vaccine gained steam after Bolsonaro expressed resistance to Coronavac, immunizer developed in partnership between the Chinese laboratory Sinovac is he Butantã Institute, from Sao Paulo. The president said that he would expect the product to have scientific evidence of effectiveness and spoke of “discrediting” a large part of the population in relation to the product, due to its origin in China.
[ad_2]
