Vaccination obligation for over – 50: must informed consent be signed? – RB
Hello, Welcome to the RockedBuzz News site! I will present you all the details of Vaccination obligation for over – 50: must informed consent be signed? – RB here.
Vaccination obligation for over – 50: you must sign informed consent? – RB
Vaccination obligation for over – 50: must informed consent be signed? – RB We have explained the details of the news, step by step, below. Vaccination obligation for over – 50: must the informed consent be signed? – RB Keep reading our news. Here are all the details on the subject.
Vaccination obligation for over – 50: yes must sign the informed consent? – RB
The launch of the anti-Covid vaccination obligation for Italian citizens over 50 was inserted by the Council of Ministers in the decree approved last January 7, at the end of an exhausting negotiation between the parties that support the majority and thanks to the mediation of the premier Mario Draghi . A passage that had been averted until today but which is now included among the ” urgent measures to deal with the emergency “That the government has adopted.
But the consequences of this choice are not insignificant. In the days immediately following the validation of the decree, the question related to the informed consent for vaccination broke out. The first alarm was launched on Codacons (acronym for Coordination of associations for the defense of the environment and rights users and consumers).
Vaccination obligation over – 50, the case of collateral consequences
The point in question is extremely relevant. In fact, Codacons notes that with the introduction of mandatory immunization, in case of physical or psychological damage caused by administration of the vaccine, the state should be identified as the only one responsible for these side consequences. But – at the moment – this is not highlighted in any way in the form to be signed .
“The informed consent signed by citizens who undergo the vaccine – says the president of Codacons, Carlo Rienzi – it must be changed urgently, because otherwise we will see a flurry of appeals presented in court against the Italian state ”. In support of this thesis, Rienzi points out that to date the text of the consent forms does not provide for any responsibility on the part of the State in the event of side effects , serious adverse reactions or permanent damage .
This is because in the first twenty-two months of the pandemic the vaccination had always remained on a voluntary basis . “With the introduction of the vaccination obligation for a category of subjects – continues Rienzi – it is clear that the informed consent in force today is no longer legitimate, and must be modified eliminating any clause that excludes liability for vaccine damage “.
Vaccination obligation over – 50, the problem of informed consent
When asked about the subject, the Undersecretary for Health Andrea Costa however denied this hypothetical scenario: according to him, the this question would not arise since it is already widely established practice that the State provides to indemnify the citizen in the event of consequences negative effects related to vaccination. However, the question remains open.
Undersecretary Costa himself does not exclude further clarification measures , even if he is keen to underline that “beyond the changes and of the choices that we will evaluate in the coming days, already today in the presence of a mass vaccination the State intervenes and takes on all responsibility to safeguard public health . There is a ruling by the Constitutional Court that affirms this “.
Obligation to vaccinate over – 50, constitutional legitimacy
The question does not exist also for Amedeo Santosuosso , former magistrate of the Court of Milan. The jurist notes that “the basis of informed consent is the article 32 of the Constitution of people”.
“The approved decree – concludes Santosuosso – has the value of the law to all effects and therefore conforms to and meets the requirements of the article 32 of the Constitution “. A thesis also supported by the judgments written by the Constitutional Court , which has already expressed itself on the matter confirming the constitutional legitimacy of the new law.