Within a year, you could agree to a tuberculin diagnosis of a child, or you could write a refusal. Of course, you were threatened if you refused to let your child go to school, but usually it doesn’t come to that. For the conflict of laws is always resolved in favor of the fundamental law, that is, the Constitution. If it is not solved, then truth-loving parents involve the prosecutor’s office, and recently also the children’s ombudsman … In general, cases when a child was not allowed to go to school without a manta test and there was nothing at school for this, science is still unknown. Whether it’s children’s summer camps. They are not obliged to provide the child with universal secondary education within the framework of the Constitution, but they are obliged to honor SanPIN.
That is why in mid-May, queues “for help” inevitably and invariably grow at the offices of phthisiatricians and in TB dispensaries. The choice remains small: either agree to Mantu, or refuse the camp. Or are there options? Let’s figure it out.
conflict of laws
What do nurses and directors in schools refer to when they do not want to allow a “rejected” child to attend classes?
They refer to SanPIN SP 3.1.2.3114-13 “Tuberculosis Prevention”, article 5.7, paragraph 2.
Parents tend to retort, referring to:
- Art. 20 FZ-323 “On protecting the health of citizens in the Russian Federation”, which prohibits ANY medical intervention (including screening) without informed voluntary consent of parents;
- Art. 5 of the Federal Law No. 273-FZ of December 29, 2012 “On Education in the Russian Federation”, guaranteeing ALL citizens to receive free education up to secondary vocational.
- Art. 43, clause 4 of the Constitution, which not only guarantees universal secondary education, but also declares it obligatory (unlike Mantoux, which, according to FZ-323, is a voluntary matter).
But, firstly, as has already been said, all these three weighty trump cards work only against schools and are completely powerless against children’s camps, which are also voluntary. Even more voluntary than tuberculin diagnostics.
And secondly, not all parents and not all school directors know yet, but the information is already brought to the attention: in 2015, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered the case of challenging the second paragraph of paragraph 5.7 of the Sanitary and Epidemiological Rules of SP 3.1.2.3114-13 “Prevention of tuberculosis and upheld it.
