The measure to force vaccination is not to tie people up on the street, says the lawyer


SÃO PAULO – Compulsory vaccination against covid-19 has already taken the political discussion in Brazil, although there is still no scientifically proven immunizer. Tests in phase 3, the last one, are ongoing and although the first results point to the safety of the vaccine, the efficacy must be attested.

The mandatory debate involves, on the one hand, President Jair Bolsonaro, who is opposed to mandatory vaccination. On the other hand, Governor João Doria (PSDB) and some experts speak of the need for the measure to stop the advance of the pandemic.

For the lawyer Cecilia Mello, of Cecilia Mello Advogados and former judge of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region, the discussion is rash. “How to determine the mandatory nature of a vaccine that does not yet exist?”, He asks, in an interview with Estadão.

Furthermore, in her opinion, imposing the immunization requirement does not mean forcing citizens to receive the substance in the body. Mandatory measures involve the establishment of sanctions in social life, such as banning access to education or moving between borders and borders for those who do not have an up-to-date vaccination card.

Read the following interview:

Should justice define vaccination against covid-19 mandatory in Brazil?

Evidently, if the time were right and there was a conflict, this could be subjected to the evaluation of Justice. But this question of a mandatory nature is absurdly hasty, completely unreasonable. We are talking about a vaccine that scientists and researchers call the first generation, ie new. We are talking about a vaccine whose tests have not yet finished. You do not yet know if it is effective, for how long and in which age groups. How to determine the mandatory nature of a vaccine that does not yet exist?

Can governments take legal steps to force people to get vaccinated?

Today everything is rushed. Therefore, it is also reckless for states to advance within the competence of the Union and the National Immunization Program. First, it should have the obligation or omission, at the right time, under the right conditions, and then invoke that, in the face of the omission, the state could do so. If the Federal Government does not act, the competence would be delegated to the States, but this is based on the technical assumption of Anvisa.

What are the implications of countering a possible mandatory vaccine?

Brazil already has mechanisms and has been following the World Health Organization calendar for mandatory vaccines for years. The measures are not tying up people in the street and giving the vaccine. You create control mechanisms such as a vaccination card for daycare, school, work. The person must prove that they have been vaccinated. And it has the extension International health regulations, that Brazil is a subscriber. Therefore, if there is a decision in international terms, there will be a barrier at border ports and airports. And it can also establish barriers in land road transport between states. A civilized country seeks mechanisms to enforce this obligation and the main mechanism is information. This barbarism they are engaging in the discussion will eventually generate ideological questions. This will reduce the credibility potential the population has in the vaccine.

See also:

Venezuela: health workers with a salary of 4 dollars a month and without protective equipment


  • separator


Source link