COVID-19 pandēmijas pārvaldības tiesiskās problēmas Latvijā: pārvietošanās un pulcēšanās brīvības ierobežojumi tiesību uz veselības aprūpi tvērumā
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2021
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Rīgas Stradiņa universitāte
Rīga Stradiņš University
Rīga Stradiņš University
Abstract
Kopš brīža, kad Covid-19 pandēmija sasniedz Latviju, ir pagājis nedaudz vairāk kā gads. Tā laikā Latvijā divas reizes tikusi izsludināta ārkārtējā situācija, kuras laikā sabiedrībai bija jāievēro un, joprojām ir jāievēro, dažādi ierobežojumi.
Izvēlētās tēmas aktualitāte ir saistīta ar Covid-19 globālās pandēmijas kā ”jaunā normālā” ienākšanu sabiedrības ikdienas dzīvē, kur, nolūkā ierobežot Covid-19 izplatību, likumdevējam nepieciešams leģitīma mērķa un sabiedrības interešu vārdā pieņemt lēmumus, tostarp saistītus ar dažādu cilvēktiesību ierobežošanu.
Tā rezultātā sabiedrībā novērojami tiesību uz veselības aizsardzību nevienlīdzīgas piemērošanas aspekti, proti, primāri ārstējot tikai Covid-19 pacientus, tiek ierobežotas pārējās sabiedrības daļas tiesības uz tās veselības aizsardzību.
Darba mērķis ir analizēt likumdevēja pieņemto lēmumu efektivitāti attiecībā uz pārvietošanās un pulcēšanās brīvības ierobežojumiem tiesību uz veselības aizsardzību tvērumā, kā rezultātā valstī joprojām ir ārkārtas stāvoklis medicīnā.
Pētījuma rezultātā darba autore konstatējusi, ka likumdevēja praktiskās rīcības trūkums, novilcināto lēmumu un to nekonsekvence ir pamatā joprojām esošajam ārkārtas stāvoklim medicīnā.
A little over a year has passed since the Covid-19 pandemic reached Latvia. During that time, an emergency state was declared twice. During this time the Latvian society had to comply with various restrictions. In fact, it still has. The topicality of the theme of the present paper is related to research of Covid-19 pandemic and the “new normal” in the everyday life of the society i.e. the daily life of the society consists of the compliance with various restrictions, in order to limit the Covid-19 spreading. And the legislator is the one, who in order to limit the spread of Covid-19 as a legitimate aim need to make decisions, including the restrictions of the various human rights. As a result, there are aspects of the unequal application of the right to health care in society, namely, the primary treatment of only Covid-19 patients restricts the right of the rest of the society to its health care. The goal of the present paper is to analyse the effectiveness of the decisions taken by the legislator regarding restrictions on the freedom of movement and assembly within the scope of the right to health care, as a result of which there is still a medical emergency in the country. As a result of the research, the author of the paper has concluded that the issue arises from lack of practical action of the legislator, delayed decisions and their inconsistency, which are the basis for the still existing state of emergency in medicine.
A little over a year has passed since the Covid-19 pandemic reached Latvia. During that time, an emergency state was declared twice. During this time the Latvian society had to comply with various restrictions. In fact, it still has. The topicality of the theme of the present paper is related to research of Covid-19 pandemic and the “new normal” in the everyday life of the society i.e. the daily life of the society consists of the compliance with various restrictions, in order to limit the Covid-19 spreading. And the legislator is the one, who in order to limit the spread of Covid-19 as a legitimate aim need to make decisions, including the restrictions of the various human rights. As a result, there are aspects of the unequal application of the right to health care in society, namely, the primary treatment of only Covid-19 patients restricts the right of the rest of the society to its health care. The goal of the present paper is to analyse the effectiveness of the decisions taken by the legislator regarding restrictions on the freedom of movement and assembly within the scope of the right to health care, as a result of which there is still a medical emergency in the country. As a result of the research, the author of the paper has concluded that the issue arises from lack of practical action of the legislator, delayed decisions and their inconsistency, which are the basis for the still existing state of emergency in medicine.
Description
Tiesību zinātne
Law Science
Tiesību zinātne
Law Science
Law Science
Tiesību zinātne
Law Science
Keywords
Covid-19, pandēmija, ierobežojumi, “brīvdienu mājsēde”, pārvietošanās brīvība, pulcēšanās brīvība, reliģijas brīvība., Covid-19, pandemic, restrictions, “brīvdienu mājsēde”, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion.