拒绝强制接种Covid-19疫苗的罚款:国家的管理权与人民在卫生保健方面的权利和自由

IF 1.2 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
S. Sefriani, Nur Gemilang Mahardhika
{"title":"拒绝强制接种Covid-19疫苗的罚款:国家的管理权与人民在卫生保健方面的权利和自由","authors":"S. Sefriani, Nur Gemilang Mahardhika","doi":"10.1108/ijhrh-03-2022-0019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe Covid-19 pandemic has persisted for almost three years. States have since then enforced laws, policies and measures believed to be the most effective to handle the global pandemic. Along this line, the Indonesian Government opted to implement mandatory vaccination and refusal of which entails monetary penalties. Hence, this study aims to analyze two legal issues that touch upon the realm of International Human Rights Law: first, whether state has the authority to implement the said mandatory vaccine program to those who refuse to be vaccinated, and second, how is the more appropriate legal policy to obligate vaccination but without coercive sanction.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis is a normative legal research that uses a qualitative method with case studies, conceptual, historical and comparative approaches. A descriptive-analytical deduction process was used in analyzing the issue.\n\n\nFindings\nThe results present, as part of state’s right to regulate, it has the authority to enact mandatory vaccination with monetary penalties to fulfil its obligation to protect public health in times of emergency; this is legal and constitutional but only if it satisfies the requirements under the International Human Rights Law: public health necessity, reasonableness, proportionality and harm avoidance. Alternatively, herd immunity is achievable without deploying unnecessary coercive sanctions, such as improving public channels of communication and information, adopting legal policies that incentivize people’s compliance like exclusion from public services, subsidies revocation, employment restrictions, higher health insurance premiums, etc.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThis study analyzes in depth the following issues: of whether the government has the authority to apply mandatory vaccination laws enforced through monetary penalties for those who refused to be vaccinated and how does the government implement the appropriate legal policy to enforce mandatory vaccination without imposing penalties for non-compliance while maintaining a balance between the interests of protecting public health and the human rights of individuals to choose medical treatment for themselves, including whether they are willing to be vaccinated. Hence, the political affairs, economic matters and other non-legal related issues are excluded from this study.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis paper hence offers a suggestive insight for state in formulating a policy relating to the mandatory vaccination program. Although the monetary penalties do not directly violate the rule of law, a more non-coercive approach to the society would be more favorable.\n","PeriodicalId":14129,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Monetary penalties for refusal of mandatory Covid-19 vaccination: state’s right to regulate vs people’s rights and freedom in health care\",\"authors\":\"S. Sefriani, Nur Gemilang Mahardhika\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ijhrh-03-2022-0019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThe Covid-19 pandemic has persisted for almost three years. States have since then enforced laws, policies and measures believed to be the most effective to handle the global pandemic. Along this line, the Indonesian Government opted to implement mandatory vaccination and refusal of which entails monetary penalties. Hence, this study aims to analyze two legal issues that touch upon the realm of International Human Rights Law: first, whether state has the authority to implement the said mandatory vaccine program to those who refuse to be vaccinated, and second, how is the more appropriate legal policy to obligate vaccination but without coercive sanction.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThis is a normative legal research that uses a qualitative method with case studies, conceptual, historical and comparative approaches. A descriptive-analytical deduction process was used in analyzing the issue.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe results present, as part of state’s right to regulate, it has the authority to enact mandatory vaccination with monetary penalties to fulfil its obligation to protect public health in times of emergency; this is legal and constitutional but only if it satisfies the requirements under the International Human Rights Law: public health necessity, reasonableness, proportionality and harm avoidance. Alternatively, herd immunity is achievable without deploying unnecessary coercive sanctions, such as improving public channels of communication and information, adopting legal policies that incentivize people’s compliance like exclusion from public services, subsidies revocation, employment restrictions, higher health insurance premiums, etc.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nThis study analyzes in depth the following issues: of whether the government has the authority to apply mandatory vaccination laws enforced through monetary penalties for those who refused to be vaccinated and how does the government implement the appropriate legal policy to enforce mandatory vaccination without imposing penalties for non-compliance while maintaining a balance between the interests of protecting public health and the human rights of individuals to choose medical treatment for themselves, including whether they are willing to be vaccinated. Hence, the political affairs, economic matters and other non-legal related issues are excluded from this study.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThis paper hence offers a suggestive insight for state in formulating a policy relating to the mandatory vaccination program. Although the monetary penalties do not directly violate the rule of law, a more non-coercive approach to the society would be more favorable.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":14129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhrh-03-2022-0019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhrh-03-2022-0019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的新冠肺炎大流行已经持续了近三年。此后,各国实施了被认为是应对全球疫情最有效的法律、政策和措施。根据这一方针,印度尼西亚政府选择实施强制性疫苗接种,拒绝接种将受到罚款。因此,本研究旨在分析涉及国际人权法领域的两个法律问题:第一,国家是否有权对拒绝接种疫苗的人实施上述强制性疫苗计划;第二,如何制定更合适的法律政策来强制接种疫苗,但不受强制制裁。设计/方法论/方法这是一项规范性法律研究,采用定性方法,包括案例研究、概念、历史和比较方法。在分析该问题时使用了描述性分析推导过程。调查结果显示,作为国家监管权的一部分,它有权制定强制性疫苗接种并处以罚款,以履行在紧急情况下保护公众健康的义务;这是合法和符合宪法的,但前提是它符合《国际人权法》的要求:公共卫生的必要性、合理性、相称性和避免伤害。或者,群体免疫是可以实现的,而无需部署不必要的强制性制裁,例如改善公共沟通和信息渠道,采取鼓励人们遵守的法律政策,如被排除在公共服务之外、取消补贴、就业限制、提高医疗保险费、,等。研究局限性/含义本研究深入分析了以下问题:政府是否有权通过对拒绝接种疫苗的人处以罚款来实施强制性疫苗接种法,以及政府如何实施适当的法律政策来强制接种疫苗,而不对不遵守规定的人处以处罚在保护公众健康的利益和个人选择治疗的人权之间保持平衡,包括他们是否愿意接种疫苗。因此,政治事务、经济事务和其他与法律无关的问题被排除在本研究之外。因此,本文为国家制定与强制性疫苗接种计划相关的政策提供了启示。尽管罚款并不直接违反法治,但对社会采取更非强制性的做法会更有利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Monetary penalties for refusal of mandatory Covid-19 vaccination: state’s right to regulate vs people’s rights and freedom in health care
Purpose The Covid-19 pandemic has persisted for almost three years. States have since then enforced laws, policies and measures believed to be the most effective to handle the global pandemic. Along this line, the Indonesian Government opted to implement mandatory vaccination and refusal of which entails monetary penalties. Hence, this study aims to analyze two legal issues that touch upon the realm of International Human Rights Law: first, whether state has the authority to implement the said mandatory vaccine program to those who refuse to be vaccinated, and second, how is the more appropriate legal policy to obligate vaccination but without coercive sanction. Design/methodology/approach This is a normative legal research that uses a qualitative method with case studies, conceptual, historical and comparative approaches. A descriptive-analytical deduction process was used in analyzing the issue. Findings The results present, as part of state’s right to regulate, it has the authority to enact mandatory vaccination with monetary penalties to fulfil its obligation to protect public health in times of emergency; this is legal and constitutional but only if it satisfies the requirements under the International Human Rights Law: public health necessity, reasonableness, proportionality and harm avoidance. Alternatively, herd immunity is achievable without deploying unnecessary coercive sanctions, such as improving public channels of communication and information, adopting legal policies that incentivize people’s compliance like exclusion from public services, subsidies revocation, employment restrictions, higher health insurance premiums, etc. Research limitations/implications This study analyzes in depth the following issues: of whether the government has the authority to apply mandatory vaccination laws enforced through monetary penalties for those who refused to be vaccinated and how does the government implement the appropriate legal policy to enforce mandatory vaccination without imposing penalties for non-compliance while maintaining a balance between the interests of protecting public health and the human rights of individuals to choose medical treatment for themselves, including whether they are willing to be vaccinated. Hence, the political affairs, economic matters and other non-legal related issues are excluded from this study. Originality/value This paper hence offers a suggestive insight for state in formulating a policy relating to the mandatory vaccination program. Although the monetary penalties do not directly violate the rule of law, a more non-coercive approach to the society would be more favorable.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: nternational Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare (IJHRH) is an international, peer reviewed journal with a unique practical approach to promoting race equality, inclusion and human rights in health and social care. The journal publishes scholarly and double blind peer-reviewed papers of the highest standard, including case studies and book reviews. IJHRH aims include: -To explore what is currently known about discrimination and disadvantage with a particular focus on health and social care -Push the barriers of the human rights discourse by identifying new avenues for healthcare practice and policy internationally -Create bridges between policymakers, practitioners and researchers -Identify and understand the social determinants of health equity and practical interventions to overcome barriers at national and international levels. The journal welcomes papers which use varied approaches, including discussion of theory, comparative studies, systematic evaluation of interventions, analysis of qualitative data and study of health and social care institutions and the political process. Papers published in IJHRH: -Clearly demonstrate the implications of the research -Provide evidence-rich information -Provoke reflection and support critical analysis of both challenges and strengths -Share examples of best practice and ‘what works’, including user perspectives IJHRH is a hugely valuable source of information for researchers, academics, students, practitioners, managers, policy-makers, commissioning bodies, social workers, psychologists, nurses, voluntary sector workers, service users and carers internationally.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信