支持和反对卫生保健工作者强制接种疫苗的争论

Q3 Social Sciences
Ivana Tucak, M. Vinković
{"title":"支持和反对卫生保健工作者强制接种疫苗的争论","authors":"Ivana Tucak, M. Vinković","doi":"10.22598/iele.2022.9.1.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The refusal of vaccination by health professionals, as a scientifically proven method of protection against disease, in a time of COVID 19 is deeply worrying because they are the ones who should explain to patients the characteristics of the vaccine and its benefits. The WHO believes that the introduction of compulsory vaccination can be counterproductive and that other non-coercive measures should be employed beforehand to achieve high vaccination coverage. States should therefore strike an appropriate balance between the autonomy and the right to self-determination of health professionals and the principle that their actions must not harm patients (the principle of non-maleficence) or must contribute to patient well-being (the principle of beneficence). This paper aims to analyze the response of the Republic of Croatia to this exceptional public health crisis. The paper is divided into two main parts. The first part of the paper explores the doctrinal, legal, and social issues surrounding the model of voluntary vaccination and the model of compulsory vaccination concerning health professionals. Special emphasis is placed on reasons for vaccine refusal among healthcare professionals. The second part of the paper deals with the issues of (compulsory) vaccination of health professionals through the labor law perspective in the Republic of Croatia, but also the practices of EU Member States that have introduced vaccination as an obligation of employees. The authors focused their research on socio-legal and qualitative analysis, as well as methodological pluralism. © 2022 University of Zagreb Faculty of Economics and Business. All rights reserved.","PeriodicalId":52280,"journal":{"name":"InterEULawEast","volume":"233 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE INTRODUCTION OF COMPULSORY VACCINATION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS\",\"authors\":\"Ivana Tucak, M. Vinković\",\"doi\":\"10.22598/iele.2022.9.1.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The refusal of vaccination by health professionals, as a scientifically proven method of protection against disease, in a time of COVID 19 is deeply worrying because they are the ones who should explain to patients the characteristics of the vaccine and its benefits. The WHO believes that the introduction of compulsory vaccination can be counterproductive and that other non-coercive measures should be employed beforehand to achieve high vaccination coverage. States should therefore strike an appropriate balance between the autonomy and the right to self-determination of health professionals and the principle that their actions must not harm patients (the principle of non-maleficence) or must contribute to patient well-being (the principle of beneficence). This paper aims to analyze the response of the Republic of Croatia to this exceptional public health crisis. The paper is divided into two main parts. The first part of the paper explores the doctrinal, legal, and social issues surrounding the model of voluntary vaccination and the model of compulsory vaccination concerning health professionals. Special emphasis is placed on reasons for vaccine refusal among healthcare professionals. The second part of the paper deals with the issues of (compulsory) vaccination of health professionals through the labor law perspective in the Republic of Croatia, but also the practices of EU Member States that have introduced vaccination as an obligation of employees. The authors focused their research on socio-legal and qualitative analysis, as well as methodological pluralism. © 2022 University of Zagreb Faculty of Economics and Business. All rights reserved.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52280,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"InterEULawEast\",\"volume\":\"233 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"InterEULawEast\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22598/iele.2022.9.1.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"InterEULawEast","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22598/iele.2022.9.1.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作为一种经过科学验证的预防疾病的方法,卫生专业人员在2019冠状病毒病期间拒绝接种疫苗,这令人深感担忧,因为他们应该向患者解释疫苗的特点及其益处。世卫组织认为,引入强制性疫苗接种可能适得其反,应事先采取其他非强制性措施,以实现高疫苗接种覆盖率。因此,各国应在保健专业人员的自主权和自决权与他们的行为不得伤害病人的原则(非恶意原则)或必须有助于病人福祉的原则(仁慈原则)之间取得适当的平衡。本文旨在分析克罗地亚共和国对这一特殊公共卫生危机的反应。本文主要分为两个部分。论文的第一部分探讨了理论,法律和社会问题周围的模式自愿疫苗接种和强制疫苗接种模式有关卫生专业人员。特别强调保健专业人员拒绝接种疫苗的原因。该文件的第二部分从克罗地亚共和国劳动法的角度讨论了卫生专业人员(强制)接种疫苗的问题,也讨论了将接种疫苗作为雇员义务的欧盟成员国的做法。作者的研究重点是社会法律和定性分析,以及方法论的多元主义。©2022萨格勒布大学经济与商学院。版权所有。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE INTRODUCTION OF COMPULSORY VACCINATION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS
The refusal of vaccination by health professionals, as a scientifically proven method of protection against disease, in a time of COVID 19 is deeply worrying because they are the ones who should explain to patients the characteristics of the vaccine and its benefits. The WHO believes that the introduction of compulsory vaccination can be counterproductive and that other non-coercive measures should be employed beforehand to achieve high vaccination coverage. States should therefore strike an appropriate balance between the autonomy and the right to self-determination of health professionals and the principle that their actions must not harm patients (the principle of non-maleficence) or must contribute to patient well-being (the principle of beneficence). This paper aims to analyze the response of the Republic of Croatia to this exceptional public health crisis. The paper is divided into two main parts. The first part of the paper explores the doctrinal, legal, and social issues surrounding the model of voluntary vaccination and the model of compulsory vaccination concerning health professionals. Special emphasis is placed on reasons for vaccine refusal among healthcare professionals. The second part of the paper deals with the issues of (compulsory) vaccination of health professionals through the labor law perspective in the Republic of Croatia, but also the practices of EU Member States that have introduced vaccination as an obligation of employees. The authors focused their research on socio-legal and qualitative analysis, as well as methodological pluralism. © 2022 University of Zagreb Faculty of Economics and Business. All rights reserved.
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
InterEULawEast
InterEULawEast Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
×
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