ArticleHealth and human rights2021
Is Mandatory Vaccination for COVID-19 Constitutional under Brazilian Law?
Article in Health and human rights, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating civil liberty and the ethical principle of autonomy in building public confidence to reduce COVID-19 vaccination inequity in Africa.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
- Factors influencing Australian nursing and midwifery students COVID-19 vaccination intentions.Vaccine: X · 2023Article
- Ethical considerations of the vaccine development process and vaccination: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Determinants of COVID-19 vaccination worldwide: WORLDCOV, a retrospective observational study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Observational
- Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination: Lessons from Tuberculosis and HIV.Health and human rights · 2022Article
- The nineteenth-century experience of the kingdom of the two Sicilies on mandatory vaccination: An Italian phenomenon?Vaccine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mandatory vaccination for COVID-19 has been the object of heated debate in Brazil. This article discusses the legality and constitutionality of such a policy. First, it analyzes the laws, regulations, and Supreme Court decisions that provide for the possibility of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. Subsequently, it analyzes the constitutionality of a mandatory vaccination policy through the proportionality method to address the conflict between, on one side, the right to individual autonomy, which includes the right to refuse a medical intervention, and, on the other, health policies that interfere with individual autonomy to protect the rights to life and health. The application of this method allows for the identification of key questions that need to be answered to determine the constitutionality of a mandatory vaccination program. These questions cannot be answered
Indexed as
Identifiers
34194210PMC8233032What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.