TFL Vsebine / Pravni letopis

Skladno z Zakonom o nalezljivih boleznih je v Sloveniji uzakonjeno obvezno cepljenje otrok. Temu institutu se v Sloveniji in v nekaterih drugih članicah EU nasprotuje, in sicer da gre pri njem za kršenje ustavno zaščitenih pravic. Ustavnost in zakonitost njegove ureditve je Ustavno sodišče RS že presojalo in obvezno cepljenje spoznalo kot legitimno sredstvo za doseganje kolektivne imunosti, ki je v splošnem interesu družbe. Kljub temu ima ureditev obveznega cepljenja določene anomalije, ki se kažejo v določenih civilnopravnih dilemah, obravnavanih v prispevku. Tako so pomembna vprašanja, ali se cepljenje res lahko pojmuje kot prisilno zdravljenje, kakšna mora biti zdravnikova pojasnilna dolžnost pri tem preventivnem posegu in kakšna je avtonomija pacienta ter s tem povezana kolizija med pravicami otrok in staršev.

In accordance with the Contagious Diseases Act, Slovenia legalized compulsory vaccination of children. This legal act, both in Slovenia and in some other EU member states, is opposed by critics claiming it is a violation of constitutionally protected rights. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia has already assessed the constitutionality and legality of its regulation and recognized compulsory vaccination as a legitimate means of achieving collective immunity, which is in the general interest of society. Nevertheless, the regulation of compulsory vaccination has anomalies that result in certain civil law dilemmas discussed in this article. Thus, the important questions are whether vaccination can really be understood as forced treatment, what is the extent of the doctor’s explanatory duty about this preventive procedure and the issue of patient autonomy in relation to conflict between children’s and parents’ rights.

Compulsory vaccination – civil law dilemmas