[ad_1]
The Brazilian State has the obligation to provide access to the vaccine for the prevention of Covid-19 to all the interested population. With this understanding, Minister Ricardo Lewandowski, of the Supreme Federal Court, voted this Wednesday (December 16) for mandatory vaccination against the disease, as determined by Law 13.979 / 2020.
The minister also reaffirmed the competing competition between the states to implement the immunization plan. In this Wednesday’s session, only the rapporteur presented the vote in two direct actions of unconstitutionality.
The trial was suspended and will resume on Thursday, with the vote of Luís Roberto Barroso, rapporteur of the appeal that discusses whether parents can stop vaccinating their underage children, based on philosophical, religious, moral and existential convictions. The actions were joined for the joint sentence of the appeal.
In a heavy vote, Lewandowski said that the central issue concerns collective health and therefore “cannot be harmed by people who deliberately refuse to be vaccinated, believing that they will selfishly remain beneficiaries of herd immunity.”
He voted to give an interpretation according to the Constitution to Law 13,979 / 2020 to establish the differentiation that mandatory vaccination does not mean forced vaccination, since it always requires the consent of the user.
However, the minister said, vaccination can be implemented through indirect measures, such as restricting the exercise of certain activities or the frequency of certain places, as long as the law provides, or is derived from it, and:
(i) are based on relevant scientific evidence and strategic analysis;
(ii) have extensive information on the efficacy, safety, and contraindications of immunizers;
(iii) respect human dignity and fundamental human rights;
(iv) meet the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality;
(v) vaccines are universally distributed and free of charge.
The measures can be implemented both by the Union and by States and municipalities, as defined by the rapporteur.
Initially, the minister indicated that the provision of the contested law would not be necessary, since compulsory immunization is provided for in the health legislation (Law 6.259 / 1975). But he argued that the rule “represents a reinforcement of pre-existing health rules, given the unusual challenges posed by the pandemic.”
Dollar photography club
The actions
The PDT requests that the competence of the states and municipalities to determine the mandatory vaccination of the population be recognized, while the PTB requests that this possibility, provided for in Law 13,979 / 2020, be declared unconstitutional.
Contrary to the mandatory immunization requirement, the title is based on article 15 of the Civil Code, according to which “no one can be forced to submit, at risk of life, to medical treatment or surgical intervention.” Lewandowski voted in favor of partially granting the ADIs, with interpretation in accordance with the Constitution.
In his statement on Wednesday, the Attorney General of the Union, José Levi Mello do Amaral Jr., affirmed that the Union has already guaranteed that it will buy the vaccines and distribute them free of charge, with the vaccination schedule, with priority, to people in the risk group.
Regarding the mandatory nature of the vaccine, he said that it is “a legal exception, the implementation of which is not and cannot be automatic.” “And not even necessarily without restrictions, but tied to technical understanding, applied on a case-by-case basis,” he said. The only competent health authority for the measure, according to the AGU, is the Ministry of Health.
The rapporteur understood that the fact that the Ministry of Health coordinates the national immunization program “does not exclude the competence of the States, Municipalities and the Federal District to adapt them to local peculiarities, in the typical exercise of the common competence of ‘taking care of the Health'”. and public assistance ‘”.
The Attorney General of the Republic, Augusto Aras, affirmed that mandatory vaccination, based on scientific evidence and strategic health information, does not violate the fundamental rights to life, health, individual freedom and the principle of human dignity.
According to the PGR, the Federal Government has competence to determine the mandatory vaccine, and it is up to the states to define the measure only in case of failure of the Union, when the local need is demonstrated, based on scientific criteria.
Buying vaccines
Last Saturday the processes that address the purchase of vaccines against the coronavirus were removed from the agenda. The measure responded to the request of the rapporteur, who received the government’s vaccination plan, sent by the attorney general of the Union, and asked for more time to examine the document.
The Court must also analyze two other actions that request permission to buy vaccines authorized by international health organizations, the approval of Anvisa is not mandatory. The actions were filed by the governor of Maranhão, Flávio Dino (PCdoB), and by the Federal Council of the OAB.
There is no prediction of when these topics will be on the agenda.
Click here to read Lewandowski’s vote.
IDA 6,586 and 6,587
[ad_2]
