A mother refused to vaccinate her newborn daughter despite the insistence of a medical clinic, which turned to the Chilean courts to authorize the vaccination of the child.
Facts
A Clinic filed a writ of protection (recurso de protección) to guarantee the right to life, health and physical integrity of a newborn against her mother’s refusal to vaccinate her.
The clinic stated that the mother came in to give birth to the child but refused to be vaccinated. Although the Clinic explained the importance of the vaccinations, the mother did not change her decision. The vaccinations in question were to protect the children against tuberculosis and hepatitis B.
Judgement
The Talca Court of Appeals agreed with the Clinic. In principle, the Court emphasized that vaccinations against tuberculosis and hepatitis B are mandatory for newborns. It also considered that the mother refused to have the vaccines given to her daughter, under the justification that the father suffers from allergic reactions to them.
However, the Court highlighted the decision of the Court of Appeals of Arica, in judgment Rol 702-21. This decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Chile. In particular, it cited the considerations that, in the face of a conflict between the will of the parents and the best interests of their minor children, the latter must prevail. Therefore, the decision of the parents not to vaccinate their daughter is contrary to her right to life and physical integrity.
The Court also cited the considerations of that judgment, regarding the fact that the injection of vaccines constitutes an exception to the patient’s decision to refuse medical treatment in accordance with his personal autonomy, as it is limited to not affecting the rights of others. Given that, the refusal of vaccines puts the rest of the population at risk for possible disease outbreaks.
Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded that refusing vaccination puts the population at risk, so that, from an ethical point of view and under the principle of solidarity, the obligation to vaccinate is justified. The Court considered as a superior good the protection of the population by the coverage of vaccines.
Effects of the judgement
Consequently, the Court of Appeals accepted the writ for protection filed by the Clinic against the mother of the minor, authorizing the vaccination of the newborn. Additionally, the Court ordered to send the case to a Family Court to examine whether there is any other affectation of the minor’s rights. The Court considered that the refusal to provide vaccinations to her daughter showed a lack of awareness of parental duties.
Read the judgement Rol N°662-2024
Find out more about the law around the world
References
Case
Judgement Rol N°662-2024/Protección. Corte de Apelaciones de Talca
