A court determined that parents cannot refuse their children’s vaccinations. With an opinion written by former ombudsman and now Constitutional Court magistrate Carlos Camargo Assis, the high court determined that the best interests of children are above parents’ refusal to apply the vaccination schedule of the Expanded Program on Immunization (PAI). It is, without a doubt, a transcendental ruling for Colombian public health.
The court made that decision when resolving the tutela action filed by a woman against the Colombian Family Welfare Institute (ICBF) because, in her view, an official from that entity exercised undue pressure to impose the vaccination schedule on her two-year-old son.
In the tutela action, the mother questioned the actions of ICBF, which began the so-called Administrative Process for the Restoration of Rights (PARD) of the child, because the mother refused to authorize the application of the PAI vaccination schedule.
The child’s mother based her refusal on official information from the vaccine manufacturer, taking into account the risk factors and adverse effects described in the contraindications, precautions, and warnings of the drugs that she identified in the technical sheets she requested from her EPS.
Court denies tutela filed by a mother
The Second Chamber of Review, made up of magistrates Juan Carlos Cortes Gonzalez, Hector Alfonso Carvajal Londoño, and Carlos Camargo Assis, who presides over it, denied the protection requested by the child’s mother after considering that the rights to freedom of conscience, free development of personality, and conscientious objection had not been violated.
In its decision, the court studied the constitutional scope of the best interests of the child, the fundamental right to children’s health, the legal nature of the PARD, and the limits of substitute consent exercised by parents in medical decisions related to minors.
For the court, the application of PAI in early childhood not only protects the health of the children to whom the vaccine is applied, but also protects the right to health of those who, due to their medical condition, do not have the possibility of obtaining the direct biological benefits.
The court also recognized in Ruling T-108 of 2026 that vaccines represent a clear opportunity for the prevention of communicable diseases and the reduction of morbidity and mortality in the child population. However, in some cases, they may represent risks and side effects.
Despite this, it emphasized that the immunization of populations constitutes, in itself, an imperative constitutional objective, given the central role it plays in guaranteeing public health and preventing avoidable diseases.
The fundamental rights of children prevail
The court reiterated that freedom of conscience and free development of personality are not absolute rights and find limits when parental decisions compromise the prevailing fundamental rights of children.
It also emphasized that parental authority and substitute consent do not enable parents to make decisions that put at risk the life, health, or comprehensive development of their children.
The Chamber concluded that the opening of a rights verification process by ICBF, in response to parental refusal to apply the childhood vaccination schedule, does not in itself constitute a violation of the fundamental rights of parents. On the contrary, it is a legitimate and constitutionally necessary action aimed at protecting the child’s right to health and best interests.
Consequently, in the specific case and considering that the child’s mother stated that the application of vaccines could represent a risk for her son, the Court ordered the EPS to which the minor is affiliated to carry out a comprehensive medical evaluation on the viability of applying the vaccination schedule, to have an appropriate technical input that would allow the child’s immunization to proceed effectively.
In addition, the Chamber ordered the EPS to apply the vaccines corresponding to PAI that are medically viable according to the previously ordered comprehensive medical evaluation, and also urged the mother to comply with her duties established in the Childhood and Adolescence Code, consisting of guaranteeing periodic health and vaccination checkups for her minor child.