The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

The choice not to get vaccinated is private information? - Walla! Business

2021-02-25T12:40:23.423Z


The Health Committee approved the disclosure of information about people who have not been vaccinated to the authorities, which, as expected, raised the claim of invasion of information privacy. Is this legitimate, or is the concept that the individual's choice not to be vaccinated is fundamentally wrong? A legal aspect to the move


  • Business

  • Opinions

The choice not to get vaccinated is private information?

The Health Committee approved the disclosure of information about people who have not been vaccinated to the authorities, which, as expected, raised the claim of invasion of information privacy.

Is this legitimate, or is the concept that the individual's choice not to be vaccinated is fundamentally wrong?

A legal aspect to the move

Tags

  • Corona

Adv. Yochai Shelef

Thursday, February 25, 2021, 1:31 p.m.

  • Share on Facebook

  • Share on WhatsApp

  • Share on general

  • Share on general

  • Share on Twitter

  • Share on Email

0 comments

Israel has been fighting the corona plague for a year.

Currently, the death toll stands at 5,673 and 773 patients who are in critical condition.

Every day thousands are infected with the virus.

Along with the direct lethal health effects of the virus, it is impossible to ignore other damage caused by the virus, including to the Israeli economy, education, culture, leisure life and the mental health of Israeli citizens.



Half full glass: There is a vaccine that the medical establishment believes is safe and has been found to have a very effective effect.

The vaccine not only protects the vaccinated against the disease, but also allows the reduction of infection and mortality rates;

As a result, it should help overcome the epidemic so that Israel can return to normal and rehabilitate itself.



Yesterday, the Knesset Health Committee approved the provision of information regarding the names of people who have not yet been vaccinated to local authorities, with the aim that the authorities will try to persuade them personally to get vaccinated.

Everything, in order to reduce the dimensions of the epidemic.

The said move provoked voices that cried out in the face of the constitutional violation of the right to privacy.

Has the Health Committee violated a constitutional right?

Does a citizen have a vested right to keep confidential information that he or she refuses to receive a vaccine, making it a potential risk to the public?

More on Walla!

NEWS

The business is flourishing again: this is how the small flower shop in Be'er Sheva is growing out of the crisis

To the full article

The public can be encouraged to get vaccinated, especially to prevent potential risk (Photo: Reuven Castro)

Just for the sake of illustration, on Tuesday a teacher from the Sharon area who did not find it appropriate to get vaccinated and was diagnosed with corona, caused about 80 students to go into isolation and as a result a "Happy Purim holiday" for about 80 families.

This case is a relatively mild case.

What about someone who does not consciously get vaccinated and infects another person with the virus and causes his death?

And what about someone who does not get vaccinated by choice, and then is hospitalized and consumes valuable resources in which the taxpayer bears?

Or is he wasting limited medical resources at the expense of someone else who fell ill and was not vaccinated with no choice (in light of allergies, etc.)?



It is certainly possible to have a discussion about the limits of the right to privacy and if information about an individual that may harm those around him is "private information".

Here are two sample questions we can ask ourselves in this context: Is the thing of being a "new driver" driver - private information of the driver and not the interest of anyone else?

Is the name and personal details of a fraud / violence / sex offender personal information protected as a constitutional right?

Why do the aforesaid questions not provoke a lively public debate regarding the "preservation of the constitutional right to privacy"?



The concept that a person's choice not to receive medical treatment is the sole property of his private life is incorrect, because as stated, in certain circumstances, this choice may have far-reaching consequences for the general public.

The choice not to get vaccinated is also a choice to potentially harm the public.

Proportional and proper harm

Adv. Yochai Shelef (Photo: Eyal Toag)

Even assuming that the individual's choice not to be vaccinated against corona is private information, one does not have to be a lawyer to know that high school citizenship classes teach that a constitutional right can be violated as long as it is intended to serve a public purpose and does not exceed what is required.

It is a fundamental enlightenment of any state system that seeks to preserve itself.

The state has tools to deal with threats and pests;

And violation / denial of constitutional rights is a trivial thing - the prison violates the constitutional right to liberty;

Police officers and soldiers are even granted the right to violate the constitutional right to life or bodily integrity.

Therefore, providing information to a local authority in order to enable it to try to reduce harm and persuade vaccine refusers to get vaccinated, in order to prevent an escalation of an epidemic for all its consequences, constitutes a proportionate and appropriate violation of the right to privacy.



And in the apt wording of Justice Haim Nachmias (T.P. 1326/92 MI v. A. Palencia):

All the more so for such a patient - an arbitrary, existing and standing basic right to live his life with dignity, to come into contact with others and to have sex as he pleases, provided that this is not prohibited by law.

That does not mean it's the right honorable increasing the basic rights of those who come into contact with live and exist to add, to be updated from serious illness propagation may actually eaten by people. "



Yohai drew attorney and mediator - an expert in constitutional law;

Partner in the litigation department of the firm Eitan Glory Fields

  • Share on Facebook

  • Share on WhatsApp

  • Share on general

  • Share on general

  • Share on Twitter

  • Share on Email

0 comments

Source: walla

All business articles on 2021-02-25

You may like

News/Politics 2024-03-15T11:06:27.813Z

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.