Decree law January 5, 2021: Tso authorized?
It seems that in the latest decree published in the official gazette there is a nasty surprise for all those who believe in the fundamental right to freedom of therapeutic choice: in defiance of the law on informed consent, the possibility of acting against the will expressed by the patient or his guardian!
We are talking about the DL n.1 of January 5, 2021, which you can read in full here, on the Official Gazette website.
In our opinion, the contents of Article 5 are very serious, which should cause more than a concern in all those who have among their loved ones people who reside in health facilities (including the famous RSAs) and residences for the elderly.
Art. 5 Manifestation of consent to the health treatment of the anti Covid-19 vaccine for incapacitated subjects admitted to assisted health facilities
Here we describe what precautions are imposed in the vaccination proposal for Covid-19. There is a great deal, initially, of informed consent, also recalling the specific law that we remember being the 219 of 2017.
1. The incapable persons admitted to assisted health facilities, however named, express their consent to the health treatment for anti Covid-19 vaccinations of the national strategic plan referred to in article 1, paragraph 457, of law no. 30, by means of the relative guardian, curator or support administrator, or the trustee referred to in article 2020 of the law of 178 December 4, n. 22, and in any case in compliance with the provisions of article 2017 of the same law no. 219 of 3 and of the will already expressed by the interested party pursuant to the aforementioned article 219 registered in the database referred to in article 2017, paragraph 4, of the law 1 December 418, n. 27, or the one that he would presumably have expressed when capable of understanding and willing.
it is also specified that:
4. The consent referred to in paragraph 3, given in accordance with the will of the interested party expressed pursuant to articles 3 and 4 of law no. 219 of 2017 or, failing that, in compliance with that of the persons referred to in the first sentence of the same paragraph 3, is immediately and definitively effective. The consent cannot be expressed in deviation from the will of the interested party, expressed pursuant to articles 3 and 4 of law n. 219 of 2017 or, failing that, by that of the persons referred to in the first sentence of the same paragraph 3.
All right, you will say ... The problems come later, when we start talking about what can happen in case of refusal of the proposed vaccination (by the person concerned or by the neighbor, relative, guardian, etc.). Article 4 continues:
Nevertheless, in case of refusal of the latter, the medical director, or the medical manager of the structure in which the interested party is hospitalized, or the health director of the ASL or his delegate, can request pursuant to article 3, paragraph 5 of the law of 22 December 2017, n. 219, to be authorized to carry out vaccination in any case.
Sorry, but we are talking about the possibility of imposing the vaccine even against the will of the person concerned and his representatives ???
We remind you that the vaccine against Covid-19 is an experimental product, provided with only "emergency" authorization, conditioned on the data that will be collected in the coming years. It is not a "cure" and does not present to date a certain and incontrovertibly established safety profile, just as its effectiveness or duration over time is not guaranteed !!!
But that's not all, unfortunately: the tutelary judge has well (so to speak) 48 hours to validate or deny the validation of the vaccination request. Another 48h is the limit set for the communication of this validation or denial; but after these terms, note what happens:
9. Once the term referred to in paragraph 7 has elapsed without the communication provided therein having been made, the consent expressed pursuant to paragraph 5 is considered validated for all purposes and becomes definitively effective for the purposes of administering the vaccine. "
In conclusion, we see a very serious danger especially for those elderly people hospitalized in nursing homes, hospices, retirement homes: not only have they been deprived for months of the opportunity to entertain themselves and receive regular visits from close relatives; not only had it already been decreed that it was impossible to ask for their resignation during the emergency, now they are being taken as the target of "consents" that are not at all such! The spouse, the child, whoever represents the family and close relatives, even in the event of refusal, can have their loved one vaccinated, perhaps even against their wishes, by direct decision of the manager or health manager, if not by the manager Asl, who may not even know the person concerned ...
Unfortunately, we have no advice to be able to defend you from this drift, other than to monitor carefully, always be available and try to obtain information about it, also contacting a lawyer if unclear maneuvers are suspected.
It is very serious that we are looking for a way to bypass the wills of people who, it was decided, must instead be subjected to experimentation, moreover recalling the same law that should have protected them.
We close with the hope that this sad chapter of history will end as soon as possible.