VACCINATION IN BRAZIL IN TIMES OF PANDEMICS: FREEDOM OF CHOICE OR A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES?

Abstract

THE PRESENT RESEARCH, ENTITLED VACCINATION IN BRAZIL IN TIMES OF PANDEMIC: FREEDOM OF CHOICE OR A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE? IT AIMED TO ANALYZE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MANDATORY VACCINATION, AS WELL AS INVESTIGATE WHETHER THIS IMPOSITION VIOLATES INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM, AND ALSO THE POSSIBLE SANCTIONS THAT CAN BE APPLIED, EVEN INDIRECTLY, TO THOSE WHO REJECT VACCINES, IN THE FACE OF A PANDEMIC CONTEXT EXPERIENCED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE WORLD. DESPITE THE ADOPTION OF A SERIES OF POLICIES BY GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE WORLD, AS WELL AS IN BRAZIL, IMMUNIZATION IS NECESSARY, CONSIDERING THAT SUCH ACTIONS ONLY PERFORMED SUPERFICIAL CONTAMINATION CONTROL. THEREFORE, IT IS NOTICEABLE THAT IMMUNIZATION, COLLECTIVE OR EVEN INDIVIDUAL, THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE ENTIRE POPULATION, IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY WHICH HAS THE ABILITY TO CONTROL THE CONTAGION OF PEOPLE BY THE SARS-COV-2 VIRUS. THUS, AS A WAY TO UNDERSTAND AND ACHIEVE THE PROPOSED OBJECTIVES, THE BASIC RESEARCH WAS EMPLOYED, IN QUANTITATIVE, EXPLORATORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL FORM, WHICH IS COMPOSED OF BOOKS, WRITINGS, ARTICLES, AMONG OTHERS, BECAUSE FROM THIS, A GREATER COVERAGE OF THE SUBJECT IS POSSIBLE. THROUGH THE RESEARCH CARRIED OUT, IT WAS POSSIBLE TO SEE THAT THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT INTERPRETS THE CONSTITUTION THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT INTERPRETS THE CONSTITUTION IN SUCH A WAY AS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT VACCINATION IS MANDATORY, BUT NOT COMPULSORY, GIVEN THE PUBLIC HEALTH FOCUS, WHICH IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS ON THE EXERCISE OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, THAT OF CHOOSING (NOT) TO BE VACCINATED. SINCE THAT ONE OVERLAPS THIS ONE.