Reflections And Amendments On The Reporting System Of The Infectious Disease Prevention And Treatment Law

The reporting system of the Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Disease Law plays a certain role in the prevention and control process in 2004 and the COVID-19 in2020,but there are still great shortcomings compared with the legislative objectives given by the legislator to the reporting system of the infectious disease control.Based on this,this paper analyzes the theoretical basis of the reporting system of the Infectious Disease Control and Treatment Law,and compares the legislation and normative documents on the reporting system of infectious disease control at the national and local levels,and raises questions about the reporting system from six aspects,and puts forward targeted suggestions for improvement based on the relevant legislation of other countries.Firstly,we analyze the motivation of studying the reporting system of the law and introduce and explain the basic theories of infectious disease reporting system,which are:cooperative governance theory,power restriction theory,due process theory,and public trust theory.The above four theories not only have a guiding role in the introduction of the reporting system of infectious disease prevention and treatment law but also promote the improvement and development of the reporting system itself.Among them,cooperative governance theory and power restriction theory guide the reporting system to form a micro system of rights restricting power,the due process theory promotes the formation of procedural rights for whistleblowers in infectious disease control and treatment law,and the public trust theory guides to the formation of the suability of the whistleblower’s right of supervision.Secondly,from the perspective of substantive law and procedural law,the current national legislation in China is sorted out and analyzed.At the same time,from the perspective of the legal imperative,the paper takes a study and analysis of China’s local laws and regulations legislation and standardization.In the national legislation,the substantive law regulates the reporting system of infectious disease prevention and treatment law from four aspects: subject,content,legal responsibility,and protection system.The procedural law regulates the reporting system of the law from two aspects:procedural rights and procedural obligations of the whistleblower.At the local level,local legislative documents and government normative documents standardize the reporting system of the law from four aspects: subject,content,legal responsibility,and protection system.Thirdly,on the basis of combining the current situation of national and local legislation,the author puts forward questions on the reporting system of the Law from six aspects.Firstly,the stipulation of the supervised subject in the right of supervision under the system is not perfect,the second is the definition of the subjective legal element of the whistleblower is in a blank state,the third is the lack of operability on the legal situation of reporting behavior,the fourth is the protection of the rights and interests of whistleblowers is not comprehensive,fifth,the subject status of the administrative litigation brought by the whistleblower is unclear,and the sixth is the absence of reporting incentive system during the infectious disease prevention and control.Finally,based on the introduction of other countries’ reporting system legislation and judicial precedents,combined with the legal principles of the China Infectious Disease Prevention and Treatment Law,and the problems of the reporting system in the Law,six suggestions are given for improvement: first,to expand the scope of the subject to be supervised;second,to clarify the provisions of the subjective legal element of the whistleblower in infectious disease prevention and control;third,to refine the provisions on the legal situation of reporting behavior;fourth,to improve the legal protection of the rights and interests of the whistleblower;fifth,to clarify the eligibility of the whistleblower administrative litigation;sixth,to build a reasonable incentive system for the whistleblower.