ADMET

Complete News World in United States

Criticism of vaccination is not a reason for medical discipline

Criticism of vaccination is not a reason for medical discipline

The Commissioner for Human Rights adds that limiting the possibility of providing scientific data, even if it comes from minorities, may have a negative impact on the development of research.
The Ombudsman has written to the chief spokesperson for Professional Responsibility, Grzegorz Wrona, regarding his actions against the signatories of the “Open Letter to Polish Doctors, Scientists and Healthcare Professionals to Polish Authorities and the Media” and “Appeal of Scientists and Doctors regarding Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2” .

Look at LEX: COVID-19 Vaccinations – Tasks of Medical Facilities and Duties of Staff>

This is about an online circular dated 5 October 2020 “An open letter from Polish doctors, scientists and healthcare workers to the Polish authorities and media”. She pointed out that: “After the initial panic of the Covid-19 virus, objective facts show a completely different picture – there is no medical and scientific justification for the continuation of the restrictions in place. She added that there are alternative treatments that the signatories believe will be. The appeal is also aimed at undermining confidence in immunization. .

is reading: A lawyer may be afraid of vaccination, but internet excitement sometimes conflicts with morals >>

Doctors called for explanations

The Ombudsman received a letter from the Wolne Election Association regarding Grzegorz Wrona’s actions towards the persons who signed the letter. Explanations are called upon. The letters addressed to them indicated that failure to respond would be considered an admission that they themselves signed or agreed to put their names on the signatories’ list.

Read at LEX: The COVID-19 Pandemic and Access to Law. Comparing Poland with international study results>

See also  Students are back to full-time learning!

The speaker refers to Wrona’s position on the letter dated April 21, 2021 regarding GIS implementation regarding Doctor’s professional liability. Paweł Grzesiowski, who criticized the authorities’ actions in the epidemic. He then stated that “one cannot generally equate freedom of expression or the right to critically evaluate the actions of particular authorities or institutions with the right to be freely declared by doctors, that is, people who perform a profession of public trust, and views that are inconsistent with Current scientific knowledge or reinforcement of anti-health attitudes. “

Read at LEX: Differentiation and discrimination – the legal status of those vaccinated and unvaccinated with COVID-19>

With art. 71 sentence 2 of the Medical Ethics Code, it follows that a physician, also outside his professional work, cannot reinforce anti-health attitudes. Thus, it does not preclude the professional liability of a physician from publishing any health information that is false or tampered with.

At the same time, however, presenting views that are not in line with the prevailing position of science, as long as they are based on reliable scientific research, cannot – in the opinion of the Commissioner for Human Rights – lead to action in relation to professionals. Responsibility towards doctors.

Read at LEX: > The principle of equal treatment in European Union law and the different treatment of unvaccinated people against COVID-19

Even the accused has the right to remain silent

The Commissioner for Human Rights draws attention to the need to consider any evidence in the pending proceedings, including reliable potential research that confirms or contradicts the theses declared by the signatories to the sermons.

See also  The movie "Forgotten Traces in the Woods" is available online

The defender also raises doubts about information in letters to doctors that failure to respond to Grzegorz Wrona’s letter would mean recognition of the fact that you are a signatory to a letter or appeal.

Because the mere act of silence cannot equate to accepting certain facts. Adopting such a concept would be in contradiction to art. 74 par. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, resulting from failure of the accused to prove his innocence and to present evidence that harms his interest. It is assumed that the accused has the right to remain silent, and it cannot have negative consequences for the accused – he adds.

Read at LEX: Legality of penalties for violating epidemiological restrictions>