A\u015f\u0131 reddi, bireylerin \u00f6zg\u00fcr iradeleri ile toplum sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 koruma zorunlulu\u011fu aras\u0131nda \u00f6nemli bir ikilem olu\u015fturmakta; bu durum, hukukun temel unsurlar\u0131ndan olan bireysel haklar ile kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n yeniden de\u011ferlendirilmesini gerektirmektedir. A\u015f\u0131lama, bir\u00e7ok hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131n yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6l\u00fcm ve hastal\u0131k oranlar\u0131n\u0131 azaltmada etkili, ekonomik ve yayg\u0131n kabul g\u00f6ren bir y\u00f6ntem olarak toplum sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6nemli bir ba\u015far\u0131 olarak kabul edilmektedir. D\u00fcnya Sa\u011fl\u0131k \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\u2019n\u00fcn Mart 2018 tarihli raporunda, k\u00fcresel \u00e7apta a\u015f\u0131laman\u0131n y\u0131lda 2-3 milyon hayat kurtard\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanarak a\u015f\u0131n\u0131n toplumsal \u00f6nemine dikkat \u00e7ekilmi\u015ftir. Ancak, son y\u0131llarda \u00e7ocukluk \u00e7a\u011f\u0131 a\u015f\u0131lanma oranlar\u0131nda k\u00fcresel \u00f6l\u00e7ekte bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fc\u015f ya\u015fanmas\u0131 kayg\u0131 verici bir geli\u015fme olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n
Ulusal hukuk kaynaklar\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin taraf oldu\u011fu veya olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 uluslararas\u0131 hukuk ve insan haklar\u0131 belgelerinde, a\u015f\u0131lama hem bir hak hem de topluma kar\u015f\u0131 bir y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck olarak tan\u0131mlanmaktad\u0131r. \u00dclkemizde ise \u2018a\u015f\u0131 reddi\u2019 kavram\u0131 2010 y\u0131l\u0131ndan itibaren g\u00fcndeme gelmi\u015f; medya ve haberlerin bu konuda etkili oldu\u011fu g\u00f6zlemlenmi\u015ftir. \u00d6rne\u011fin, 2015 y\u0131l\u0131nda Ordu\u2019da ikiz bebeklerine a\u015f\u0131 yapt\u0131rmay\u0131 reddeden bir aile hakk\u0131nda sa\u011fl\u0131k tedbiri davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, ancak aile bireysel hak ihlali ve onam al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131 davay\u0131 kazanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu karar, medyada \u201c\u0130kiz bebeklerine a\u015f\u0131 yapt\u0131rmayan savc\u0131n\u0131n hukuk zaferi\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131yla geni\u015f yer bulmu\u015f ve toplumda a\u015f\u0131 reddinin artmas\u0131na, domino etkisiyle benzer tutumlar\u0131n yayg\u0131nla\u015fmas\u0131na zemin haz\u0131rlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Zorunlu a\u015f\u0131n\u0131n temel haklar ve anayasal ilkeler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda hukuki konumu<\/p>\n
Zorunlu a\u015f\u0131 uygulamalar\u0131, anayasal haklarla yak\u0131ndan ili\u015fkili bir aland\u0131r. Bu uygulamalar \u00f6zellikle bireyin v\u00fccut b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczerinde do\u011frudan bir etki yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 rejimi i\u00e7erisinde ele al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r. 1982 Anayasas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesi, herkesin \u201cya\u015fama, maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 koruma ve geli\u015ftirme hakk\u0131na sahip\u201d oldu\u011funu belirtmekte, devam\u0131nda ise \u201ckimsenin v\u00fccut b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne dokunulamayaca\u011f\u0131\u201d h\u00fckme ba\u011flanmaktad\u0131r. Ayn\u0131 zamanda Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 15. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131, ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc hallerde dahi bireyin maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ortaya koymaktad\u0131r. Bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle zorunlu a\u015f\u0131 uygulamas\u0131, sadece sa\u011fl\u0131k politikalar\u0131n\u0131n konusu de\u011fil, ayn\u0131 zamanda temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da anayasal bir de\u011ferlendirme gerektirir.<\/p>\n
Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi (A\u0130HS) ba\u011flam\u0131nda ise zorunlu a\u015f\u0131n\u0131n bireyin haklar\u0131na m\u00fcdahale olu\u015fturabilece\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131k olup, bu m\u00fcdahale en \u00e7ok \u00f6zel hayat\u0131n korunmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin 8. madde ile ili\u015fkilendirilebilir. Bu madde kapsam\u0131nda, bireyin bedenine y\u00f6nelik t\u0131bbi m\u00fcdahaleler, \u00f6zel hayat\u0131n bir unsuru olarak de\u011ferlendirilmekte ve bu t\u00fcr m\u00fcdahalelerin hukuka uygunlu\u011fu, kamu yarar\u0131 ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkeleri \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde denetlenmektedir.<\/p>\n
Zorunlu a\u015f\u0131 uygulamalar\u0131, bireyin temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckleriyle do\u011frudan ili\u015fkili olup, anayasal d\u00fczlemde \u00e7ok boyutlu de\u011ferlendirmeyi gerekli k\u0131lar. Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesi uyar\u0131nca, “herkes \u00f6zel ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmesini isteme hakk\u0131na sahiptir”. Bu h\u00fck\u00fcm, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. ve 15. maddeleriyle birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde, bireyin maddi ve manevi b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn anayasal d\u00fczeyde g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc g\u00fcvencelerle korundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n
Ancak, kamu sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ile bireysel haklar aras\u0131nda kurulmas\u0131 gereken denge, \u00f6zellikle zorunlu a\u015f\u0131 uygulamalar\u0131 gibi alanlarda son derece karma\u015f\u0131k ve hassas bir yap\u0131 arz etmektedir. Bu noktada, yaln\u0131zca ulusal anayasal d\u00fczenlemeler de\u011fil, uluslararas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmeler de dikkate al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bu kapsamda, Oviedo S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi (\u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 ve Biyot\u0131p S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi), temel referans belgelerinden biridir. T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin de taraf oldu\u011fu bu s\u00f6zle\u015fme, 2. maddesinde \u201cinsan\u0131n \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131n\u0131n, bilim ve toplumun \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131na \u00fcst\u00fcn oldu\u011funu\u201d a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtmekte; insan onurunun korunmas\u0131n\u0131 t\u00fcm d\u00fczenlemelere egemen bir ilke olarak kabul etmektedir.<\/p>\n
S\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 5. maddesi ise, sa\u011fl\u0131k alan\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilecek her t\u00fcrl\u00fc t\u0131bbi m\u00fcdahalede ki\u015finin \u00f6zg\u00fcr ve bilgilendirilmi\u015f onam\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6n ko\u015ful oldu\u011funu vurgulamaktad\u0131r. Bu maddeye g\u00f6re; bir m\u00fcdahale yaln\u0131zca bireyin \u00f6zg\u00fcr iradesiyle ve yeterli bilgilendirme sonucunda verdi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131k r\u0131za ile ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilebilir. Ayr\u0131ca, birey m\u00fcdahale hakk\u0131nda m\u00fcdahalenin amac\u0131, niteli\u011fi, sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 ve olas\u0131 riskleri hakk\u0131nda bilgilendirilmelidir. En \u00f6nemlisi, ki\u015fi bu r\u0131zas\u0131n\u0131 her zaman serbest\u00e7e geri alma hakk\u0131na da sahiptir. A\u015f\u0131 uygulamalar\u0131 da bireyin bedensel b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne do\u011frudan etki eden bir i\u015flem oldu\u011fundan, t\u0131bbi m\u00fcdahale niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde, zorunlu a\u015f\u0131 uygulamalar\u0131, anayasal g\u00fcvenceler ve uluslararas\u0131 insan haklar\u0131 belgeleri \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bireyin r\u0131zas\u0131na dayal\u0131 ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc bir yakla\u015f\u0131mla ele al\u0131nmal\u0131, kamu sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle yap\u0131lan s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131n demokratik toplum gereklerine uygunlu\u011fu titizlikle denetlenmelidir.<\/p>\n
T\u00fcrk hukukunda zorunlu a\u015f\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak a\u00e7\u0131k ve do\u011frudan bir kanuni d\u00fczenlemenin bulunmamas\u0131, Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan da bir\u00e7ok bireysel ba\u015fvuru karar\u0131nda ele\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. \u00d6zellikle bebeklik d\u00f6neminde uygulanan a\u015f\u0131lar konusunda verilen kararlarda, Mahkeme, s\u00f6z konusu m\u00fcdahalenin kanunilik \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lay\u0131p kar\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tart\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015f ve m\u00fcdahalenin do\u011frudan bir yasal dayana\u011fa dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle anayasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k tespitinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Bu durum, zorunlu a\u015f\u0131 uygulamalar\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. ve 17. maddelerinde d\u00fczenlenen temel haklar\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rlanmas\u0131 rejimi ile uyumlu \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlenmesi gerekti\u011fine i\u015faret etmektedir.<\/p>\n
Her ne kadar 5395 say\u0131l\u0131 \u00c7ocuk Koruma Kanunu\u2019nun \u201cKoruyucu ve destekleyici tedbirler\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 5\/1-d maddesi uyar\u0131nca, \u201c\u00e7ocu\u011fun fiziksel ve ruhsal sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve tedavisi i\u00e7in gerekli ge\u00e7ici veya s\u00fcrekli t\u0131bb\u00ee bak\u0131m ve rehabilitasyonuna\u201d ili\u015fkin \u00f6nlemler \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015fse de, bu h\u00fck\u00fcm ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131klama uygulamalar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden a\u00e7\u0131k ve yeterli bir yasal dayanak olu\u015fturmamaktad\u0131r. Zira, ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131klama program\u0131na ili\u015fkin ilke ve usuller, bebeklik d\u00f6nemini de kapsayacak bi\u00e7imde hangi a\u015f\u0131lar\u0131n uygulanaca\u011f\u0131na dair d\u00fczenlemeler, kanunla de\u011fil, y\u00f6netmelik ve genelgelerle belirlenmektedir. Bu durum, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere m\u00fcdahalenin ancak kanunla m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olabilece\u011fine ili\u015fkin ilke ile \u00e7eli\u015fmektedir.<\/p>\n
Anayasa Mahkemesine yap\u0131lan iki bireysel ba\u015fvuruda, mevzuatta a\u00e7\u0131k bir yasal d\u00fczenleme bulunmamas\u0131 nedeniyle zorunlu a\u015f\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131; aksi halde Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. ve 17. maddeleri kapsam\u0131nda hak ihlali olu\u015faca\u011f\u0131 karara ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r:<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2013\/1789, 11\/11\/2015. <\/p>\n
Halime Sare Aysal Karar\u0131, ebeveynlerinin r\u0131zas\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n, mahkeme karar\u0131yla bir bebe\u011fe t\u0131bbi m\u00fcdahale kapsam\u0131nda a\u015f\u0131 uygulanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin \u00f6nemli bir \u00f6rnektir. U\u015fak \u0130l M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, bebe\u011fin ebeveynleri taraf\u0131ndan bebeklik d\u00f6nemi a\u015f\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131r\u0131lmamas\u0131 nedeniyle, 5395 say\u0131l\u0131 \u00c7ocuk Koruma Kanunu\u2019nun 5\/1-d maddesi uyar\u0131nca \u201csa\u011fl\u0131k tedbiri\u201d uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir. Talep \u00fczerine, Sivasl\u0131 Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi, bebe\u011fin ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131klama program\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken a\u015f\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n, ebeveynlerin t\u00fcm bilgilendirme s\u00fcre\u00e7lerine ra\u011fmen yapt\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit etmi\u015f ve \u00e7ocu\u011fu \u201ckorunmaya muhta\u00e7 \u00e7ocuk\u201d olarak de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, bu gerek\u00e7eyle bebe\u011fe sa\u011fl\u0131k tedbiri uygulanmas\u0131na ve a\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Ancak, ailenin mahkeme karar\u0131na ra\u011fmen \u00e7ocu\u011fa zorla a\u015f\u0131 yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na izin vermemesi \u00fczerine, uygulama ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilememi\u015f ve bu durum resmi tutanakla kay\u0131t alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Halime Sare Aysal karar\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde Anayasa Mahkemesi, bebeklik d\u00f6nemi a\u015f\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n genel ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131klama program\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yaln\u0131zca genelgeye dayanarak uygulanamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, bu t\u00fcr t\u0131bbi m\u00fcdahalelerin Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. ve 17. maddelerinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc gibi ancak a\u00e7\u0131k ve somut bir kanuni d\u00fczenleme ile m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olabilece\u011fine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Umumi H\u0131fz\u0131ss\u0131hha Kanunu\u2019nun 57. maddesinde yer almayan hastal\u0131klara y\u00f6nelik genelge ile zorunlu a\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131, bireyin v\u00fccut b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne m\u00fcdahale olarak de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finden Anayasa\u2019ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulunmu\u015ftur. Bu karar, 1982 Anayasas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesindeki \u201cv\u00fccut b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne dokunulamaz\u201d ilkesinin ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131labilece\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca 20. maddede g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayat\u0131n gizlili\u011fi hakk\u0131n\u0131n da b\u00f6yle m\u00fcdahalelerde dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini vurgulamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin karar\u0131, bireylerin temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerinin ancak yasall\u0131k ilkesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde k\u0131s\u0131tlanabilece\u011fine dair \u00f6nemli bir i\u00e7tihat niteli\u011findedir. Toplum sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n yarar\u0131 gibi me\u015fru ama\u00e7lar dahi olsa, zorunlu a\u015f\u0131lama uygulamalar\u0131n\u0131n genelgeye de\u011fil, do\u011frudan yasaya dayanmas\u0131 gereklili\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Sonu\u00e7 olarak, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de kanuni dayanak olmaks\u0131z\u0131n zorunlu a\u015f\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan hak ihlali olarak de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2014\/4077, 29\/6\/2016. <\/p>\n
Muhammed Ali Bayram Ba\u015fvurusu, bebeklik a\u015f\u0131lar\u0131 ve \u00f6nceki kararlar\u0131n aksine, velinin onay\u0131 olmamas\u0131 nedeniyle topuk kan\u0131 testi i\u00e7in mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan t\u0131bbi tedbir uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7ermektedir. Ba\u015fvurucunun temsilcileri, sa\u011fl\u0131k personelinin a\u015f\u0131lama ve topuk kan\u0131 alma taleplerini reddetmi\u015f, bu durum tutanakla tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Mersin Aile Dan\u0131\u015fma Merkezi M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc\u2019n\u00fcn talebi \u00fczerine, Mersin 2. \u00c7ocuk Mahkemesi 5395 say\u0131l\u0131 \u00c7ocuk Koruma Kanunu\u2019nun 5\/1-d maddesi uyar\u0131nca sa\u011fl\u0131k tedbiri karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucu bebe\u011fin ebeveynlerinin geni\u015fletilmi\u015f ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131klama program\u0131ndaki a\u015f\u0131lar\u0131 yapt\u0131rmak istemedi\u011fini ve aile hekimine kay\u0131t ettirmedi\u011fini belirterek koruyucu tedbire h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Ailenin itiraz\u0131 reddedilmi\u015f; itirazda a\u015f\u0131 ve topuk kan\u0131 testlerinin zorunlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, zaman\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7ti\u011fi, salg\u0131n hastal\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00e7ocu\u011fun sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda sorun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddia edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme, \u00e7ocukluk a\u015f\u0131lar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan Sare Aysal karar\u0131 gibi kanunilik ko\u015fulunun sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit etmi\u015f ancak topuk kan\u0131 uygulamas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 bir yakla\u015f\u0131m benimsemi\u015ftir. 3359 say\u0131l\u0131 Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hizmetleri Temel Kanunu\u2019nun 3\/1-l maddesi, engelli \u00e7ocuk do\u011fumlar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemek amac\u0131yla gebelik \u00f6ncesi ve gebelik s\u00fcrecinde t\u0131bbi ve e\u011fitsel \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131, yeni do\u011fanlarda metabolik hastal\u0131k taramalar\u0131n\u0131 ve gerekli tedbirlerin al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczenlemektedir. Ayr\u0131ca, zorunlu topuk kan\u0131 taramas\u0131 2006\/130 ve 2014\/7 say\u0131l\u0131 genelgelerle ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Anayasa Mahkemesi, topuk kan\u0131 uygulamas\u0131n\u0131n yasall\u0131k kriterini kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131 ve demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninde zorunlu olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 incelemi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u011flamda, yeni do\u011fanlarda metabolik hastal\u0131klar\u0131n tespiti, riskli bireylerin belirlenmesi ve tedavi s\u00fcrecinin ba\u015flat\u0131lmas\u0131 ama\u00e7lanmaktad\u0131r. Uygulaman\u0131n, \u00e7ocuklarda zek\u00e2 gerili\u011fi ve beyin hasar\u0131 gibi ciddi sa\u011fl\u0131k sorunlar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemek i\u00e7in gerekli oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca, zorunlu topuk kan\u0131 uygulamas\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011fl\u0131k a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan olumsuz bir etkisinin oldu\u011funa dair bir iddia ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmemi\u015ftir. Bu yarar ve zarar dengesi sonucunda, Anayasa Mahkemesi d\u00fczenlemenin keyfi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve demokratik toplumda gerekli ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc oldu\u011funu h\u00fckme ba\u011flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Av. Ece ERTU\u011e \u00d6ZKARA<\/p>\n
Avukat, Hem\u015fire<\/p>\n
KAYNAK\u00c7A<\/p>\n
Bozkurt HB. An overview of vaccine rejection and review of literature. Kafkas J Med Sci 2018; 8(01): 71-6.<\/p>\n
Y\u00fcksel GH, Topuzo\u011flu A. A\u015f\u0131 Redlerinin Artmas\u0131 ve A\u015f\u0131 Kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 Etkileyen Fakt\u00f6rler. Est\u00fcdam Halk Sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Dergisi 2019; 4(2): 244-58.<\/p>\n
D\u00fczg\u00fcn, M. V., & \u0130\u015fler Dalg\u0131\u00e7, A. (2019). Toplum sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in giderek artan tehlike: A\u015f\u0131 reddi \u00f6nlenebilir mi? JCP, 17(2), 424-434.<\/p>\n
\u00dczelt\u00fcrk, S. (2022). Anayasa hukuku a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan zorunlu a\u015f\u0131 – Vav\u0159i\u010dka karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6\u011frettikleri. Yeditepe \u00dcniversitesi Hukuk Fak\u00fcltesi Dergisi, 19(3), 467\u2013520.<\/p>\n
\u200bA\u015f\u0131 reddi, bireylerin \u00f6zg\u00fcr iradeleri ile toplum sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 koruma zorunlulu\u011fu aras\u0131nda \u00f6nemli bir ikilem olu\u015fturmakta; bu durum, hukukun temel unsurlar\u0131ndan olan bireysel haklar ile kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n yeniden de\u011ferlendirilmesini gerektirmektedir. A\u015f\u0131lama, bir\u00e7ok hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131n yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6l\u00fcm ve hastal\u0131k oranlar\u0131n\u0131 azaltmada etkili, ekonomik ve yayg\u0131n kabul g\u00f6ren bir y\u00f6ntem olarak toplum sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6nemli bir ba\u015far\u0131 olarak kabul edilmektedir. D\u00fcnya Sa\u011fl\u0131k \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\u2019n\u00fcn Mart 2018 tarihli raporunda, k\u00fcresel \u00e7apta a\u015f\u0131laman\u0131n y\u0131lda 2-3 milyon hayat kurtard\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanarak a\u015f\u0131n\u0131n toplumsal \u00f6nemine dikkat \u00e7ekilmi\u015ftir. Ancak, son y\u0131llarda \u00e7ocukluk \u00e7a\u011f\u0131 a\u015f\u0131lanma oranlar\u0131nda k\u00fcresel \u00f6l\u00e7ekte bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fc\u015f ya\u015fanmas\u0131 kayg\u0131 verici bir geli\u015fme olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n
Ulusal hukuk kaynaklar\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin taraf oldu\u011fu veya olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 uluslararas\u0131 hukuk ve insan haklar\u0131 belgelerinde, a\u015f\u0131lama hem bir hak hem de topluma kar\u015f\u0131 bir y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck olarak tan\u0131mlanmaktad\u0131r. \u00dclkemizde ise \u2018a\u015f\u0131 reddi\u2019 kavram\u0131 2010 y\u0131l\u0131ndan itibaren g\u00fcndeme gelmi\u015f; medya ve haberlerin bu konuda etkili oldu\u011fu g\u00f6zlemlenmi\u015ftir. \u00d6rne\u011fin, 2015 y\u0131l\u0131nda Ordu\u2019da ikiz bebeklerine a\u015f\u0131 yapt\u0131rmay\u0131 reddeden bir aile hakk\u0131nda sa\u011fl\u0131k tedbiri davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, ancak aile bireysel hak ihlali ve onam al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131 davay\u0131 kazanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu karar, medyada \u201c\u0130kiz bebeklerine a\u015f\u0131 yapt\u0131rmayan savc\u0131n\u0131n hukuk zaferi\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131yla geni\u015f yer bulmu\u015f ve toplumda a\u015f\u0131 reddinin artmas\u0131na, domino etkisiyle benzer tutumlar\u0131n yayg\u0131nla\u015fmas\u0131na zemin haz\u0131rlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Zorunlu a\u015f\u0131n\u0131n temel haklar ve anayasal ilkeler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda hukuki konumu<\/p>\n
Zorunlu a\u015f\u0131 uygulamalar\u0131, anayasal haklarla yak\u0131ndan ili\u015fkili bir aland\u0131r. Bu uygulamalar \u00f6zellikle bireyin v\u00fccut b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczerinde do\u011frudan bir etki yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 rejimi i\u00e7erisinde ele al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r. 1982 Anayasas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesi, herkesin \u201cya\u015fama, maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 koruma ve geli\u015ftirme hakk\u0131na sahip\u201d oldu\u011funu belirtmekte, devam\u0131nda ise \u201ckimsenin v\u00fccut b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne dokunulamayaca\u011f\u0131\u201d h\u00fckme ba\u011flanmaktad\u0131r. Ayn\u0131 zamanda Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 15. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131, ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc hallerde dahi bireyin maddi ve manevi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik dokunulmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ortaya koymaktad\u0131r. Bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle zorunlu a\u015f\u0131 uygulamas\u0131, sadece sa\u011fl\u0131k politikalar\u0131n\u0131n konusu de\u011fil, ayn\u0131 zamanda temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da anayasal bir de\u011ferlendirme gerektirir.<\/p>\n
Avrupa \u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi (A\u0130HS) ba\u011flam\u0131nda ise zorunlu a\u015f\u0131n\u0131n bireyin haklar\u0131na m\u00fcdahale olu\u015fturabilece\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131k olup, bu m\u00fcdahale en \u00e7ok \u00f6zel hayat\u0131n korunmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin 8. madde ile ili\u015fkilendirilebilir. Bu madde kapsam\u0131nda, bireyin bedenine y\u00f6nelik t\u0131bbi m\u00fcdahaleler, \u00f6zel hayat\u0131n bir unsuru olarak de\u011ferlendirilmekte ve bu t\u00fcr m\u00fcdahalelerin hukuka uygunlu\u011fu, kamu yarar\u0131 ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fcl\u00fck ilkeleri \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde denetlenmektedir.<\/p>\n
Zorunlu a\u015f\u0131 uygulamalar\u0131, bireyin temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckleriyle do\u011frudan ili\u015fkili olup, anayasal d\u00fczlemde \u00e7ok boyutlu de\u011ferlendirmeyi gerekli k\u0131lar. Anayasa’n\u0131n 20. maddesi uyar\u0131nca, “herkes \u00f6zel ve aile hayat\u0131na sayg\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmesini isteme hakk\u0131na sahiptir”. Bu h\u00fck\u00fcm, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 17. ve 15. maddeleriyle birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde, bireyin maddi ve manevi b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn anayasal d\u00fczeyde g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc g\u00fcvencelerle korundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n
Ancak, kamu sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ile bireysel haklar aras\u0131nda kurulmas\u0131 gereken denge, \u00f6zellikle zorunlu a\u015f\u0131 uygulamalar\u0131 gibi alanlarda son derece karma\u015f\u0131k ve hassas bir yap\u0131 arz etmektedir. Bu noktada, yaln\u0131zca ulusal anayasal d\u00fczenlemeler de\u011fil, uluslararas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmeler de dikkate al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bu kapsamda, Oviedo S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi (\u0130nsan Haklar\u0131 ve Biyot\u0131p S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi), temel referans belgelerinden biridir. T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin de taraf oldu\u011fu bu s\u00f6zle\u015fme, 2. maddesinde \u201cinsan\u0131n \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131n\u0131n, bilim ve toplumun \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131na \u00fcst\u00fcn oldu\u011funu\u201d a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtmekte; insan onurunun korunmas\u0131n\u0131 t\u00fcm d\u00fczenlemelere egemen bir ilke olarak kabul etmektedir.<\/p>\n
S\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 5. maddesi ise, sa\u011fl\u0131k alan\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilecek her t\u00fcrl\u00fc t\u0131bbi m\u00fcdahalede ki\u015finin \u00f6zg\u00fcr ve bilgilendirilmi\u015f onam\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6n ko\u015ful oldu\u011funu vurgulamaktad\u0131r. Bu maddeye g\u00f6re; bir m\u00fcdahale yaln\u0131zca bireyin \u00f6zg\u00fcr iradesiyle ve yeterli bilgilendirme sonucunda verdi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131k r\u0131za ile ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilebilir. Ayr\u0131ca, birey m\u00fcdahale hakk\u0131nda m\u00fcdahalenin amac\u0131, niteli\u011fi, sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 ve olas\u0131 riskleri hakk\u0131nda bilgilendirilmelidir. En \u00f6nemlisi, ki\u015fi bu r\u0131zas\u0131n\u0131 her zaman serbest\u00e7e geri alma hakk\u0131na da sahiptir. A\u015f\u0131 uygulamalar\u0131 da bireyin bedensel b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne do\u011frudan etki eden bir i\u015flem oldu\u011fundan, t\u0131bbi m\u00fcdahale niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde, zorunlu a\u015f\u0131 uygulamalar\u0131, anayasal g\u00fcvenceler ve uluslararas\u0131 insan haklar\u0131 belgeleri \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bireyin r\u0131zas\u0131na dayal\u0131 ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc bir yakla\u015f\u0131mla ele al\u0131nmal\u0131, kamu sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle yap\u0131lan s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131n demokratik toplum gereklerine uygunlu\u011fu titizlikle denetlenmelidir.<\/p>\n
T\u00fcrk hukukunda zorunlu a\u015f\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak a\u00e7\u0131k ve do\u011frudan bir kanuni d\u00fczenlemenin bulunmamas\u0131, Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan da bir\u00e7ok bireysel ba\u015fvuru karar\u0131nda ele\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. \u00d6zellikle bebeklik d\u00f6neminde uygulanan a\u015f\u0131lar konusunda verilen kararlarda, Mahkeme, s\u00f6z konusu m\u00fcdahalenin kanunilik \u015fart\u0131n\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lay\u0131p kar\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tart\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015f ve m\u00fcdahalenin do\u011frudan bir yasal dayana\u011fa dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle anayasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k tespitinde bulunmu\u015ftur. Bu durum, zorunlu a\u015f\u0131 uygulamalar\u0131n\u0131n Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. ve 17. maddelerinde d\u00fczenlenen temel haklar\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rlanmas\u0131 rejimi ile uyumlu \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlenmesi gerekti\u011fine i\u015faret etmektedir.<\/p>\n
Her ne kadar 5395 say\u0131l\u0131 \u00c7ocuk Koruma Kanunu\u2019nun \u201cKoruyucu ve destekleyici tedbirler\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 5\/1-d maddesi uyar\u0131nca, \u201c\u00e7ocu\u011fun fiziksel ve ruhsal sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 ve tedavisi i\u00e7in gerekli ge\u00e7ici veya s\u00fcrekli t\u0131bb\u00ee bak\u0131m ve rehabilitasyonuna\u201d ili\u015fkin \u00f6nlemler \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015fse de, bu h\u00fck\u00fcm ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131klama uygulamalar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden a\u00e7\u0131k ve yeterli bir yasal dayanak olu\u015fturmamaktad\u0131r. Zira, ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131klama program\u0131na ili\u015fkin ilke ve usuller, bebeklik d\u00f6nemini de kapsayacak bi\u00e7imde hangi a\u015f\u0131lar\u0131n uygulanaca\u011f\u0131na dair d\u00fczenlemeler, kanunla de\u011fil, y\u00f6netmelik ve genelgelerle belirlenmektedir. Bu durum, Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere m\u00fcdahalenin ancak kanunla m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olabilece\u011fine ili\u015fkin ilke ile \u00e7eli\u015fmektedir.<\/p>\n
Anayasa Mahkemesine yap\u0131lan iki bireysel ba\u015fvuruda, mevzuatta a\u00e7\u0131k bir yasal d\u00fczenleme bulunmamas\u0131 nedeniyle zorunlu a\u015f\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131; aksi halde Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. ve 17. maddeleri kapsam\u0131nda hak ihlali olu\u015faca\u011f\u0131 karara ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r:<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2013\/1789, 11\/11\/2015. <\/p>\n
Halime Sare Aysal Karar\u0131, ebeveynlerinin r\u0131zas\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n, mahkeme karar\u0131yla bir bebe\u011fe t\u0131bbi m\u00fcdahale kapsam\u0131nda a\u015f\u0131 uygulanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin \u00f6nemli bir \u00f6rnektir. U\u015fak \u0130l M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, bebe\u011fin ebeveynleri taraf\u0131ndan bebeklik d\u00f6nemi a\u015f\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131r\u0131lmamas\u0131 nedeniyle, 5395 say\u0131l\u0131 \u00c7ocuk Koruma Kanunu\u2019nun 5\/1-d maddesi uyar\u0131nca \u201csa\u011fl\u0131k tedbiri\u201d uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir. Talep \u00fczerine, Sivasl\u0131 Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi, bebe\u011fin ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131klama program\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken a\u015f\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n, ebeveynlerin t\u00fcm bilgilendirme s\u00fcre\u00e7lerine ra\u011fmen yapt\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit etmi\u015f ve \u00e7ocu\u011fu \u201ckorunmaya muhta\u00e7 \u00e7ocuk\u201d olarak de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, bu gerek\u00e7eyle bebe\u011fe sa\u011fl\u0131k tedbiri uygulanmas\u0131na ve a\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Ancak, ailenin mahkeme karar\u0131na ra\u011fmen \u00e7ocu\u011fa zorla a\u015f\u0131 yapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na izin vermemesi \u00fczerine, uygulama ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilememi\u015f ve bu durum resmi tutanakla kay\u0131t alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Halime Sare Aysal karar\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde Anayasa Mahkemesi, bebeklik d\u00f6nemi a\u015f\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n genel ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131klama program\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda yaln\u0131zca genelgeye dayanarak uygulanamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, bu t\u00fcr t\u0131bbi m\u00fcdahalelerin Anayasa\u2019n\u0131n 13. ve 17. maddelerinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc gibi ancak a\u00e7\u0131k ve somut bir kanuni d\u00fczenleme ile m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olabilece\u011fine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Umumi H\u0131fz\u0131ss\u0131hha Kanunu\u2019nun 57. maddesinde yer almayan hastal\u0131klara y\u00f6nelik genelge ile zorunlu a\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131, bireyin v\u00fccut b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne m\u00fcdahale olarak de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finden Anayasa\u2019ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulunmu\u015ftur. Bu karar, 1982 Anayasas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n 17. maddesindeki \u201cv\u00fccut b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne dokunulamaz\u201d ilkesinin ancak kanunla s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131labilece\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca 20. maddede g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan \u00f6zel hayat\u0131n gizlili\u011fi hakk\u0131n\u0131n da b\u00f6yle m\u00fcdahalelerde dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini vurgulamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Anayasa Mahkemesi\u2019nin karar\u0131, bireylerin temel hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerinin ancak yasall\u0131k ilkesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde k\u0131s\u0131tlanabilece\u011fine dair \u00f6nemli bir i\u00e7tihat niteli\u011findedir. Toplum sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n yarar\u0131 gibi me\u015fru ama\u00e7lar dahi olsa, zorunlu a\u015f\u0131lama uygulamalar\u0131n\u0131n genelgeye de\u011fil, do\u011frudan yasaya dayanmas\u0131 gereklili\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Sonu\u00e7 olarak, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de kanuni dayanak olmaks\u0131z\u0131n zorunlu a\u015f\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan hak ihlali olarak de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2014\/4077, 29\/6\/2016. <\/p>\n
Muhammed Ali Bayram Ba\u015fvurusu, bebeklik a\u015f\u0131lar\u0131 ve \u00f6nceki kararlar\u0131n aksine, velinin onay\u0131 olmamas\u0131 nedeniyle topuk kan\u0131 testi i\u00e7in mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan t\u0131bbi tedbir uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7ermektedir. Ba\u015fvurucunun temsilcileri, sa\u011fl\u0131k personelinin a\u015f\u0131lama ve topuk kan\u0131 alma taleplerini reddetmi\u015f, bu durum tutanakla tespit edilmi\u015ftir. Mersin Aile Dan\u0131\u015fma Merkezi M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc\u2019n\u00fcn talebi \u00fczerine, Mersin 2. \u00c7ocuk Mahkemesi 5395 say\u0131l\u0131 \u00c7ocuk Koruma Kanunu\u2019nun 5\/1-d maddesi uyar\u0131nca sa\u011fl\u0131k tedbiri karar\u0131 vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, ba\u015fvurucu bebe\u011fin ebeveynlerinin geni\u015fletilmi\u015f ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131klama program\u0131ndaki a\u015f\u0131lar\u0131 yapt\u0131rmak istemedi\u011fini ve aile hekimine kay\u0131t ettirmedi\u011fini belirterek koruyucu tedbire h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Ailenin itiraz\u0131 reddedilmi\u015f; itirazda a\u015f\u0131 ve topuk kan\u0131 testlerinin zorunlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, zaman\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7ti\u011fi, salg\u0131n hastal\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00e7ocu\u011fun sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda sorun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddia edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme, \u00e7ocukluk a\u015f\u0131lar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan Sare Aysal karar\u0131 gibi kanunilik ko\u015fulunun sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit etmi\u015f ancak topuk kan\u0131 uygulamas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 bir yakla\u015f\u0131m benimsemi\u015ftir. 3359 say\u0131l\u0131 Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hizmetleri Temel Kanunu\u2019nun 3\/1-l maddesi, engelli \u00e7ocuk do\u011fumlar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemek amac\u0131yla gebelik \u00f6ncesi ve gebelik s\u00fcrecinde t\u0131bbi ve e\u011fitsel \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131, yeni do\u011fanlarda metabolik hastal\u0131k taramalar\u0131n\u0131 ve gerekli tedbirlerin al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczenlemektedir. Ayr\u0131ca, zorunlu topuk kan\u0131 taramas\u0131 2006\/130 ve 2014\/7 say\u0131l\u0131 genelgelerle ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Anayasa Mahkemesi, topuk kan\u0131 uygulamas\u0131n\u0131n yasall\u0131k kriterini kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcdahalenin orant\u0131l\u0131 ve demokratik toplum d\u00fczeninde zorunlu olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 incelemi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u011flamda, yeni do\u011fanlarda metabolik hastal\u0131klar\u0131n tespiti, riskli bireylerin belirlenmesi ve tedavi s\u00fcrecinin ba\u015flat\u0131lmas\u0131 ama\u00e7lanmaktad\u0131r. Uygulaman\u0131n, \u00e7ocuklarda zek\u00e2 gerili\u011fi ve beyin hasar\u0131 gibi ciddi sa\u011fl\u0131k sorunlar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemek i\u00e7in gerekli oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca, zorunlu topuk kan\u0131 uygulamas\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011fl\u0131k a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan olumsuz bir etkisinin oldu\u011funa dair bir iddia ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmemi\u015ftir. Bu yarar ve zarar dengesi sonucunda, Anayasa Mahkemesi d\u00fczenlemenin keyfi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve demokratik toplumda gerekli ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc oldu\u011funu h\u00fckme ba\u011flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Av. Ece ERTU\u011e \u00d6ZKARA<\/p>\n
Avukat, Hem\u015fire<\/p>\n
KAYNAK\u00c7A<\/p>\n
Bozkurt HB. An overview of vaccine rejection and review of literature. Kafkas J Med Sci 2018; 8(01): 71-6.<\/p>\n
Y\u00fcksel GH, Topuzo\u011flu A. A\u015f\u0131 Redlerinin Artmas\u0131 ve A\u015f\u0131 Kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 Etkileyen Fakt\u00f6rler. Est\u00fcdam Halk Sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Dergisi 2019; 4(2): 244-58.<\/p>\n
D\u00fczg\u00fcn, M. V., & \u0130\u015fler Dalg\u0131\u00e7, A. (2019). Toplum sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in giderek artan tehlike: A\u015f\u0131 reddi \u00f6nlenebilir mi? JCP, 17(2), 424-434.<\/p>\n
\u00dczelt\u00fcrk, S. (2022). Anayasa hukuku a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan zorunlu a\u015f\u0131 – Vav\u0159i\u010dka karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6\u011frettikleri. Yeditepe \u00dcniversitesi Hukuk Fak\u00fcltesi Dergisi, 19(3), 467\u2013520.\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A\u015f\u0131 reddi, bireylerin \u00f6zg\u00fcr iradeleri ile toplum sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 koruma zorunlulu\u011fu aras\u0131nda \u00f6nemli bir ikilem olu\u015fturmakta; bu durum, hukukun temel unsurlar\u0131ndan olan bireysel haklar ile kamu yarar\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n yeniden de\u011ferlendirilmesini gerektirmektedir. A\u015f\u0131lama, bir\u00e7ok hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131n yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6l\u00fcm ve hastal\u0131k oranlar\u0131n\u0131 azaltmada etkili, ekonomik ve yayg\u0131n kabul g\u00f6ren bir y\u00f6ntem olarak toplum sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6nemli bir ba\u015far\u0131 olarak kabul edilmektedir. D\u00fcnya Sa\u011fl\u0131k \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\u2019n\u00fcn Mart 2018 tarihli raporunda, k\u00fcresel \u00e7apta a\u015f\u0131laman\u0131n y\u0131lda 2-3 milyon hayat kurtard\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurgulanarak a\u015f\u0131n\u0131n toplumsal \u00f6nemine dikkat \u00e7ekilmi\u015ftir. Ancak, son y\u0131llarda \u00e7ocukluk \u00e7a\u011f\u0131 a\u015f\u0131lanma oranlar\u0131nda k\u00fcresel \u00f6l\u00e7ekte bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fc\u015f ya\u015fanmas\u0131 kayg\u0131 verici bir geli\u015fme olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Ulusal hukuk kaynaklar\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin taraf oldu\u011fu veya olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 uluslararas\u0131 hukuk ve insan haklar\u0131 belgelerinde, a\u015f\u0131lama hem bir hak hem de topluma kar\u015f\u0131 bir y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck olarak tan\u0131mlanmaktad\u0131r. \u00dclkemizde ise \u2018a\u015f\u0131 reddi\u2019 kavram\u0131 2010 y\u0131l\u0131ndan itibaren g\u00fcndeme gelmi\u015f; medya ve haberlerin bu konuda etkili oldu\u011fu g\u00f6zlemlenmi\u015ftir. \u00d6rne\u011fin, 2015 y\u0131l\u0131nda Ordu\u2019da ikiz bebeklerine a\u015f\u0131 yapt\u0131rmay\u0131 reddeden bir aile hakk\u0131nda sa\u011fl\u0131k tedbiri davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, ancak aile bireysel hak ihlali ve onam al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131 davay\u0131 kazanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu karar, medyada \u201c\u0130kiz bebeklerine a\u015f\u0131 yapt\u0131rmayan savc\u0131n\u0131n hukuk zaferi\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131yla geni\u015f yer bulmu\u015f ve toplumda a\u015f\u0131 reddinin artmas\u0131na, domino etkisiyle benzer tutumlar\u0131n yayg\u0131nla\u015fmas\u0131na zemin haz\u0131rlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Zorunlu a\u015f\u0131n\u0131n …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100860","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n