Administrative liability for performance of vaccination with an age-inappropriate SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the Republic of Latvia

The duty of ensuring epidemiological safety, including the duty to ensure vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 to people, is included in the framework of the national constitutional rights. The healthcare institutions providing vaccination and medical practitioners performing vaccination are one of the key assets of the national health care system, which have been delegated the duty in the field of public health and protection of lives that is a part of human rights. Violation of the epidemiological safety requirements in the Republic of Latvia, if it may cause a risk to human health, is subject to a fine from EUR 10 to EUR 2000 for a natural person and from EUR 140 to EUR 5000 for a legal person. Vaccination shall be performed with an age-appropriate vaccine. This means that if, for example, Vaccine Janssen is intended for active immunization for the prevention of infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 for persons from the age of 18, it may not be used for persons who are 17 years and under. In this study, the authors have analysed the administrative offence cases, in which administrative liability has been imposed on medical institutions for performing vaccination with age-inappropriate vaccine, and explain separation of administrative liability from criminal liability in such cases, reveal compensation mechanisms in the event of consequences, when inappropriate vaccination has caused harm to persons’ life or health, as well as undertake statistical data analysis on the imposed fines. At the same time, the authors analyse the reasons why inappropriate vaccination has been performed, the circumstances of committing the administrative offences and the mitigating and aggravating circumstances which may affect the scope of the penalty in particular cases. Analysing the scientific literature and judicial practice, the authors reveal mechanisms for improvement of safety in healthcare institutions providing vaccination. The authors also analyse the limits of patient’s autonomy, indicating that even if the patient or the patient’s representative wishes the vaccination to be performed with any particular vaccine, it does not release the medical practitioner from the obligation to check the appropriateness of this vaccine for the patient and to inform the patient on why the vaccine is inappropriate for the patient and what are the possible effects of its administration in the patient’s body.