Many of you are asking us for opinions on the so-called “informed dissent” and here we are going to briefly explain to you why, in our opinion, it makes no sense to proceed with the signing of this document.
To understand what we are talking about, it is necessary to refer to the legislation on informed consent, namely Law 22 December 2017, n. 219, which establishes that no treatment can be started or continued without free and informed consent and describes the CI (informed consent) as a meeting point between the patient's decision-making autonomy and the doctor's competence, professional autonomy and responsibility. The same law affirms the right of every person “to know their health conditions and to be informed in a complete, up-to-date and comprehensible manner regarding the diagnosis, prognosis, benefits and risks of the diagnostic tests and health treatments indicated, as well as regarding the possible alternatives and the consequences of any refusal of the health treatment and diagnostic test or of their renunciation”.
This provision, in the daily life encountered by those parents who decide not to comply with the provisions of Law 119/2017 (the so-called Lorenzin Law) and therefore postpone or not carry out one or more vaccinations, is embodied in a form that the ASL proposes to the parents of the minor and called "Form of informed dissent to vaccination".
First of all, it is a written document (form) which is only useful to the competent ASL to demonstrate that one has completed one's information task, to give you the widest possibilities for comparison and to always be available for any clarification or information you may need.
But do you think this is true? In our experience and from the countless feedback you users give us, absolutely not! So much so that, to give an example, there is a perennial denial of the very existence of vaccine damage (despite there being an Italian law, 210/92, which prescribes compensation for vaccine damage, and that this same law requires the health institutions in charge to provide extensive information and make the text available).
Furthermore, in the majority of cases, the testimonies that reach us daily paint a portrait of the ASL staff that is anything but "open and available" towards those who ask for clarifications, those who ask questions, those who ask for scientific literature or reassurances even regarding the most important aspects. “critics” of pediatric vaccinations.
What has already been said so far could be enough to make you say “no, thank you” to those who propose that you sign declarations that are obviously not true. In any case, it must be very clear that what they propose you sign will remain on file in your health file (or rather in the one concerning your children) and therefore we must weigh with the utmost care what we are going to sign.
Furthermore, this signature, let it be clear, It does not protect you from any of the consequences provided for by law 119/2017 on vaccination failure: neither with regard to possible sanctions, nor with regard to the blackmail of exclusion from educational services for children, which unfortunately remains the bitter reality to be faced by every family that does not want to subject their children, within the expected timeframe, to the 10 mandatory vaccines with the relative boosters.
In essence, the public administration is asking you to go and report to them that, despite them having provided us with all the answers, with the utmost openness, we choose not to vaccinate. “because yes” and we therefore assume full responsibility for it as it is our decision regardless of the information provided.
Well, no! This is not the position of those who are critical of the need to vaccinate against the 10 diseases required by law!
On the contrary, it is precisely from lack of transparent information, from lack of availability for civil and constructive dialogue, as well as for comparison and openness with respect to what science establishes and does not establish regarding vaccine efficacy and safety, which makes it impossible for us to sign the informed consent!
It follows that there is no reason for there to be, in our opinion, an “informed dissent”, nor is it legitimate for healthcare personnel to demand that it be signed by those who do not want to proceed with vaccinations.
Corvelva Staff
