RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court (STF) will decide whether parents may refrain from vaccinating their underage children on the basis of philosophical, religious, moral, and existential convictions. Unanimously, the Court recognized the existence of a general interest case, and the decision will become binding precedent in all future cases involving the issue. There is no indication of when the case will be heard by the court.
Commenting on the broad repercussion of the matter, Justice Luís Roberto Barroso noted that the case involves defining the boundaries of the relationship between the state and the family in ensuring the health of children and adolescents, as well as the extent of private autonomy against state impositions.
“On one hand, parents have the right to direct the upbringing of their children and the freedom to defend their ideological, political, and religious ideals. On the other hand, the State has the duty to protect the health of children and the community through health policies that prevent infectious diseases, such as child vaccination,” he explained.
According to Barroso, the subject has social importance due to the nature of the rights involved and the significance of child vaccination policies determined by the Ministry of Health. Furthermore, it has political relevance due to the growth and visibility of the anti-vaccine movement in Brazil. From the legal standpoint, the case is related to the interpretation and reach of constitutional norms that ensure children’s right to health and freedom of conscience and belief.
The case is under judicial seal and the information was disclosed by the STF Press Office.
History
The appeal stems from a public class action brought by the São Paulo Prosecutor’s Office (MP-SP) against the parents of a child, currently five years old, in order to force them to vaccinate their child. According to the STF, they failed to comply with the vaccination schedule determined by the health authorities, because they are adepts of vegan philosophy and opposed to invasive medical interventions.
In the first instance, the lawsuit was dismissed based on the parents’ freedom to direct education and preserve their children’s health. However, the São Paulo State Court of Appeals reversed the decision and ordered, in case of non-compliance with the decision, the seizure of the child for the application of mandatory vaccines. According to the São Paulo court, the interests of the child and his health and those of the community prevail over family convictions.
The parents then filed an extraordinary appeal to the STF, arguing that the child is in good health despite not being vaccinated. They argue that the choice not to vaccinate is ideological and informed, and should not be considered as negligence, but rather overzealous in relation to the presumed risks involved in child vaccination.
The couple also claims that the obligation to vaccinate children, provided in Paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the Children and Adolescents Statute (ECA) and in regulations thereunder, must be balanced with freedom of conscience, philosophical conviction, and intimacy, ensured by the Constitution.
Source: Estadão Conteúdo