Proceedings of the International Conference on Law Reform (INCLAR 2019)

Application of Law Toward Disclaimer of Diphtheria Immunization

Authors
Yenny Purnama, Muhammad Hatta, M. Nasser
Corresponding Author
Yenny Purnama
Available Online 4 March 2020.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.200226.016How to use a DOI?
Keywords
immunization, Human Rights, neglect of children, Diphtheria
Abstract

Diphtheria is a disease that is very contagious and provides low immunity. Very effective prevention is by immunizing Diphtheria, to increase immunity to this disease. If prevention is not carried out properly, it can lead to Extraordinary Events, as happened in 2017 in Indonesia. Handling Extraordinary Events that are not successful can result in Outbreaks. The impact of an outbreak can harm individuals, communities, nations nationally and internationally. Refusal of immunization and anti-vaccine movements can risk thwarting the prevention of Diphtheria. As a result, the disease of Diphtheria that is not there, reappeared. Some countries have implemented strict sanctions against denial of immunization: Prison (Pakistan), Prohibited schools (Italy), Fines (Germany), and Cut allowances (Australia). Rejection of immunization in Indonesia has not yet been given strict sanctions, even though Extraordinary Events have occurred. The legal immunization is mandatory as mandated in Law 36 of 2009 concerning Health Article 130: The government is obliged to provide complete immunization to every baby and child. And is the basic right of every child as stated in article 132 paragraph 3: Every child has the right to receive basic immunization in accordance with the applicable provisions to prevent the occurrence of diseases that can be avoided through immunization. In chapter XA of the 1945 Constitution concerning Human Rights, Article 28B paragraph 2: Every child has the right to survival, to grow and develop and has the right to protection from violence and discrimination. To be able to grow optimally, a child needs immunization. If a child does not get immunized, it can be interpreted that the child cannot grow optimally (neglect of children), this is contrary to Law No. 23 of 2002 concerning Child Protection article 77 and can be punished according to the article. In addition to the above article, it can be threatened with revocation of custody according to Law No. 4 of 1979 concerning Child Welfare. And can be threatened according to Law No. 4 of 1984 concerning Outbreaks of Infectious Diseases, because one of the outbreak prevention efforts is prevention and immunization

Copyright
© 2020, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press.
Open Access
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

Download article (PDF)

Volume Title
Proceedings of the International Conference on Law Reform (INCLAR 2019)
Series
Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research
Publication Date
4 March 2020
ISBN
978-94-6252-916-8
ISSN
2352-5428
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.200226.016How to use a DOI?
Copyright
© 2020, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press.
Open Access
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

Cite this article

TY  - CONF
AU  - Yenny Purnama
AU  - Muhammad Hatta
AU  - M. Nasser
PY  - 2020
DA  - 2020/03/04
TI  - Application of Law Toward Disclaimer of Diphtheria Immunization
BT  - Proceedings of the International Conference on Law Reform (INCLAR 2019)
PB  - Atlantis Press
SP  - 80
EP  - 85
SN  - 2352-5428
UR  - https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.200226.016
DO  - https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.200226.016
ID  - Purnama2020
ER  -