Challenging Vavricka: questioning compatibility of the mandatory tetanus vaccination with ECHR

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorPaksoy, Meliha Şermin
dc.contributor.authorTaner, Zeynep
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-01T07:42:43Z
dc.date.available2024-11-01T07:42:43Z
dc.date.issued2024en_US
dc.departmentFakülteler, Hukuk Fakültesi, Medeni Hukuk Ana Bilim Dalıen_US
dc.description.abstractThe compatibility of mandatory vaccinations with human rights has become a very current issue with the COVID-19 pandemic and the Vavřička ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. This ruling has faced criticism for not conducting examinations related to disease and vaccines based on direct scientific evidence. In this analysis, an assessment will be made based on direct scientific evidence about tetanus and its vaccine. The prevailing reason for mandatory tetanus vaccination is to protect the health of the vaccinated individual. Competent adults have the right to refuse treatment. This rule also applies to preventive medical interventions, including tetanus vaccination. As a rule, parents are entitled to give consent for medical interventions on their children. If an immediate and serious threat permanently endangers the minor's life, medical intervention can be carried out against the parents' will. The limitation of parental autonomy is more disputed when the minor's life is not immediately threatened. With respect to tetanus vaccination as a preventive medical intervention, it does not eliminate an immediate and serious risk of harm. As a result, interference with the parent's discretion on tetanus vaccination as a preventive medical intervention should be evaluated for its compatibility with the current legal approach to medical interventions on minors and patient rights.en_US
dc.identifier.citationPaksoy, M. Ş., Taner, Z. (2024). Challenging Vavřička: questioning compatibility of the mandatory tetanus vaccination with ECHR. Issues in Law & Medicine, 39(2), 117-139. 10.70257/DOEW4468en_US
dc.identifier.endpage139en_US
dc.identifier.issn8756-8160
dc.identifier.issn2377-6463
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85207718590
dc.identifier.scopusqualityN/A
dc.identifier.startpage117en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12939/4950
dc.identifier.volume39en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.institutionauthorPaksoy, Meliha Şermin
dc.institutionauthorTaner, Zeynep
dc.language.isoen
dc.relation.ispartofIssues in Law & Medicine
dc.relation.isversionof10.70257/DOEW4468en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectBest interesten_US
dc.subjectMandatory vaccinationen_US
dc.subjectPreventive medical interventionen_US
dc.subjectRight to reject a medical interventionen_US
dc.subjectTetanusen_US
dc.subjectVaccine refusalen_US
dc.titleChallenging Vavricka: questioning compatibility of the mandatory tetanus vaccination with ECHR
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Lisans paketi
Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
[ X ]
İsim:
license.txt
Boyut:
1.44 KB
Biçim:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Açıklama:
İndir

Koleksiyon

PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Hukuk Fakültesi Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu