Responsibilities of the administration about the epidemic diseases

Epidemic diseases caused deep wounds on humanity as a cause of many ages. That epidemic diseases caused states to be weakened in political, military and economic way made the subject of fighting against epidemic diseases an issue which the states attach importance to. States have various means, in terms of fighting against the epidemic, vaccine, quarantine, lockdown and mandatory medical intervention. Though these means are effective in the fight against epidemic, they have the potential to violate or restrict fundamental rights and freedom of individuals. Although these means violate fundamental rights of individuals, just in the name of not violating the fundamental rights, the acceptance of which the states' responsibility to fight against the epidemic is removed is not appropriate. The subject that is important here is the detection of whether the balance between the precautions the administration will take in the fight against the epidemic and the fundamental rights of individuals is protected, and whether the measures that will be taken in the framework of the administration's responsibility are comply with the principle of proportionality in terms of that fundamental rights are limited. The issue is considered with importance in the study of thesis. The thesis study has three chapters. In the first chapter, there are various terms related to epidemic diseases. In the second chapter, the measures the administration will take are evaluated. The issues of whether jurisprudence evaluation of the mandatory vaccination with the national and international regulations related to mandatory vaccination is made, of whether quarantine implementation has restrictive quality for the freedom of travel and whether the act of acting against the precautions of quarantine constitutes a crime under Turkish Penal Code, curfew enforcement is investigated in terms of law and the effect to basic rights, whether of which judicial remedies may be appealed against the decisions regarding the curfew enforcement, and lastly, in which circumstances the right of consent in medical interventions the individuals have within the frame of mandatory medical intervention might be restricted is evaluated. In the last section, obligations regarding the right to health and the right to life, obligations within the scope of access to health services and obligations within the scope of positive discrimination have been evaluated.