Pravni vidiki obveznega cepljenja

magistrsko diplomsko delo

Karin Cujnik Juhart (Author), Viktorija Žnidaršič (Mentor)

Abstract

Obvezno cepljenje je eden izmed posebnih ukrepov, ki jih zakonodajalec določa za preprečevanje in obvladovanje nalezljivih bolezni. Namen in cilj instituta obveznega cepljenja je doseganje kolektivne imunosti, ki pred nalezljivimi boleznimi varuje predvsem tiste posameznike, ki iz medicinskih razlogov ne morejo biti cepljeni. Cepljenje predstavlja invaziven medicinski poseg v zdravo človeško telo, ki ima lahko za osebo, ki se cepi, neželene stranke učinke. Zaradi neželenih učinkov, ki lahko spremljajo cepljenje, vse več staršev nasprotuje ureditvi obveznega cepljenja. Starši s takšnim prepričanjem, kljub jasni zakonski obvezi cepljenja, svojih otrok ne cepi. Navedeno ravnanje staršev vodi v padanje stopnje precepljenosti v Sloveniji. S padanjem slednje je resno ogroženo doseganje kolektivne imunosti. Zaradi vse večjega števila necepljenih oseb, so se v Evropi ponovno pojavile nalezljive bolezni, ki so bile v preteklosti že izkoreninjene. Skladno z Zakonom o nalezljivih bolezni, je v Sloveniji uzakonjeno obvezno cepljenje otrok proti devetim različnim nalezljivim boleznim. Ustavnost in zakonitost zakonske ureditve obveznega cepljenja je Ustavno sodišče RS že presojalo, saj nasprotniki obveznega cepljenja trdijo, da je obvezno cepljenje v nasprotju z ustavno varovanimi pravicami. Ustavno sodišče RS je v svoji odločbi cepljenje spoznalo kot legitimno sredstvo za doseganje kolektivne imunosti, ki je v splošnem interesu družbe. Pri tem je potrebno izpostaviti, da je sodišče cepljenje opredelilo kot eno izmed vrst prisilnega zdravljenja. Čeprav je v Sloveniji cepljenje resda obvezno, država nima učinkovitih mehanizmov, s katerimi bi starše lahko prisilila v cepljenje otrok. Oviro predstavlja dejstvo, da morajo starši za cepljenje svojih otrok izraziti vsaj neko nenasprotovanje s posegom. Tako se pri pojmovanju obveznega cepljenja nedvomno pojavita vprašanji ali se obvezno cepljenje res lahko šteje kot prisilno zdravljenje ter ali se cepljenje sploh lahko pojmuje kot zdravljenje. Moja raziskava je pokazala, da cepljenja ni mogoče šteti kot zdravljenja, sploh pa ne kot prisilnega.

Keywords

Medicinski poseg;nalezljive bolezni;obvezno cepljenje;odškodninska odgovornost;pojasnilna dolžnost;pravica do zdravstvenega varstva;prisilno zdravljenje;privolitev v medicinski poseg;zdravljenje.;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2019
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	UL PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher:	[K. Cujnik Juhart]
UDC:	351.774.7:61(043.2)
COBISS:	16678225
Views:	1707
Downloads:	779
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	Legal Aspects Of Compulsory Vaccination
Secondary abstract:	Compulsory vaccination is one of the specific measures that the legislator provides for the prevention and control of contagious diseases. The purpose of compulsory vaccination is to achieve herd immunity that protects society against infectious diseases, primarily to those individuals who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. Vaccination is an invasive medical procedure made to a healthy human body. Because vaccination can have adverse effects for the injected person, more and more parents oppose the compulsory vaccination system. Parents with this belief, despite the vaccination being compulsory, do not vaccinate their children. Because of this behaviour, the number of children being vaccinated has started to decrease, which is leading to decrease the general vaccination coverage level in Slovenia. The fall of the vaccination coverage represents a serious threat to the achievement of herd immunity. Due to the increasing number of unvaccinated people, contagious diseases that have already been eradicated have started to reappear in Europe. In accordance with the Contagious Diseases Act, there is a compulsory vaccination act for all children to be vaccinated against nine different contagious diseases in Slovenia. The constitutionality and legality of the statutory regulation of compulsory vaccination has already been judged by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia. Opponents of compulsory vaccination emphasize that compulsory vaccination is contrary to constitutionally protected rights. In its decision, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia recognized vaccination as a legitimate measure to achieve herd immunity, which is in public interest of society. It is important to emphasize that the court has defined that vaccination represents one of the types of forced treatments. Although vaccination in Slovenia is compulsory, the state does not have effective mechanisms to force parents into vaccination of their children. The main obstacle is the fact that parents must express at least some non-objection with the vaccination of their children. Thus, in the concept of compulsory vaccination, questions that arise are as whether compulsory vaccination can indeed be regarded as force treatment and whether vaccination can even be considered as a treatment. My research has shown that vaccination cannot be considered as a treatment, and therefore neither as forced treatment.
Secondary keywords:	Medical procedure;contagious diseases;compulsory vaccination;tort liability;explanatory duty;right to health care;forced treatment;consent in medical procedure;treatment.;
Type (COBISS):	Master's thesis/paper
Study programme:	0
Embargo end date (OpenAIRE):	1970-01-01
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Ljubljani, Pravna fak.
Pages:	52 f.
ID:	11369274