Tension between the individual's fundamental human rights and the protection of the public from infectious and formidable epidemic diseases

Basutu S Makwaiba
{"title":"Tension between the individual's fundamental human rights and the protection of the public from infectious and formidable epidemic diseases","authors":"Basutu S Makwaiba","doi":"10.17159/1996-2096/2021/v21n1a14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"SUMMARY Emerging infectious and formidable epidemic diseases are a cause for concern and a serious threat to the global health. At the time of writing a number of these diseases have no cure. States in their domestic legislation applicable to matters of public health have come up with approaches to deal with such diseases. Zimbabwe has enacted primary legislation and regulations dealing with public health in an effort to suppress and prevent these diseases. The Zimbabwean Public Health Act, for example, authorises the notification of infectious and formidable epidemic diseases and the inspection of infected premises. The Act further empowers the Minister of Health and Child Care to enact regulations. Through the Public Health Regulations, the government of Zimbabwe declared COVID-19 a formidable epidemic disease. Warranted by the Health Act, the Minister of Health and Child Care made treatment, testing, detention and isolation compulsory during the period in which COVID-19 is declared a formidable epidemic disease. This article seeks to provide a critical analysis of these measures as provided in the Public Health Act and health regulations in light of the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of privacy, freedom of security, liberty and freedom of movement. The question sought to be answered by the author is whether these measures justifiably trumps the rights of individuals. Key words: infectious diseases; formidable epidemic diseases; public health; fundamental human rights; legislation","PeriodicalId":36136,"journal":{"name":"African Human Rights Law Journal","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Human Rights Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2021/v21n1a14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

SUMMARY Emerging infectious and formidable epidemic diseases are a cause for concern and a serious threat to the global health. At the time of writing a number of these diseases have no cure. States in their domestic legislation applicable to matters of public health have come up with approaches to deal with such diseases. Zimbabwe has enacted primary legislation and regulations dealing with public health in an effort to suppress and prevent these diseases. The Zimbabwean Public Health Act, for example, authorises the notification of infectious and formidable epidemic diseases and the inspection of infected premises. The Act further empowers the Minister of Health and Child Care to enact regulations. Through the Public Health Regulations, the government of Zimbabwe declared COVID-19 a formidable epidemic disease. Warranted by the Health Act, the Minister of Health and Child Care made treatment, testing, detention and isolation compulsory during the period in which COVID-19 is declared a formidable epidemic disease. This article seeks to provide a critical analysis of these measures as provided in the Public Health Act and health regulations in light of the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of privacy, freedom of security, liberty and freedom of movement. The question sought to be answered by the author is whether these measures justifiably trumps the rights of individuals. Key words: infectious diseases; formidable epidemic diseases; public health; fundamental human rights; legislation
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
个人的基本人权与保护公众免受传染病和可怕流行病之害之间的紧张关系
新出现的传染病和可怕的流行病令人担忧,对全球健康构成严重威胁。在撰写本文时,这些疾病中有许多无法治愈。各国在其适用于公共卫生事务的国内立法中提出了处理这类疾病的办法。津巴布韦颁布了有关公共卫生的主要立法和条例,以努力抑制和预防这些疾病。例如,《津巴布韦公共卫生法》授权通报传染性和可怕的流行病,并检查受感染的房舍。该法进一步授权卫生和儿童保健部长颁布规章。津巴布韦政府通过《公共卫生条例》宣布COVID-19是一种可怕的流行病。根据《卫生法》,卫生和儿童保育部规定,在宣布COVID-19为严重流行病期间,必须进行治疗、检测、拘留和隔离。本文试图根据宪法保障的隐私权、安全自由权、自由和行动自由权,对《公共卫生法》和卫生条例规定的这些措施进行批判性分析。发件人试图回答的问题是,这些措施是否有理由凌驾于个人的权利之上。关键词:传染病;可怕的流行病;公共卫生;基本人权;立法
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
African Human Rights Law Journal
African Human Rights Law Journal Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Public participation as an essential requirement of the environmental rule of law: Reflections on South Africa's approach in policy and practice The right to development in Francophone Africa: Post-colonial agreements, sovereign authority and control over natural resources The prospects of litigation to secure maternal health in Nigeria: Does SERAP v Attorney-General Lagos have any value? Traditional leadership in South Africa: From blood and might usurpation to constitutional accountability The Mariana Trench of transphobia in South Africa: The legislative lacunae in KOS v Minister of Home Affairs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1