Abstract
The Supreme Court of Chile ordered the vaccination of a minor whose parents had opposed his inoculation. Although the Court reached the correct result, it did so in a rather deficient way, failing to adequately explain the reasons why mandatory vaccination is appropriate. The Court should have based its decision on the balancing-test of private autonomy and public health, opting to protect the latter, and expressly rejecting the wrong arguments put forward by the anti-vaccine movement.
| Original language | Undefined/Unknown |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 563-573 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Revista chilena de derecho |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2017 |
Keywords
- Vaccines
- Freedom of Conscience
- Public Health
- CIVIL-LIBERTIES
- PUBLIC-HEALTH
- VACCINATION
- TUBERCULOSIS
- THIMEROSAL
- MOVEMENTS
- THREAT
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver