A problem named vaccine?
Italy is divided between those in favour of the new vaccine and those with reservations. Should it be mandatory or voluntary? Interview with Professor Sinagra.
Italy, like other countries in the world, has just started a vaccination campaign against Covid-19 infection, a few days ago which, at least for the moment, is focusing solely on the messenger RNA vaccine produced by the well-known Pfizer Corporation.
The use of this vaccine (in fact all the anti-Covid vaccines proposed), has produced the classic and well-known division into supporters/hostiles, which characterizes Italian society so much when particularly important and felt issues arise within the population.
The two fronts are divided clearly. One hailed the new vaccine as the true and only saviour of humanity, forgetting that the one and true Saviour of Man is the God of the Cross and not a golden calf in transparent drops. But, you know, human soul is weak and the fear of death is a powerful push. Everyone chooses their own idolatries, when the latest smartphone model is clearly useless to heal you from a killer infection and therefore proves itself as not even a simple and useless lesser god, who could perhaps be useful again to feel "in" with the "nice people, the one that matters" when the storm is over. If it will be over.
The other front is the hostile one, people hostile for reasons that could also be shared (for example the use of cells from aborted foetuses for vaccine development lines or the preference for an innovative but clearly immature technology with consequences potentially catastrophic for mankind) but which sometimes have a not so veiled background of irrationality.
In these days in Italy, there is talk of making the vaccine mandatory or subjecting to limitations those who do not vaccinate: firing, if they are public employees who refuse it, but also prevent from going to cinemas, bars, hotels, air travel and long distance tourism for everyone else. It is easy to object that, if the economic situation continues even simply on this road, we will no longer have bars, hotels, tourism, long distance travel but for a certain class of people who live the eternal present of the snowflakes, this is a negligible point of view.
What are the legal limits that the Italian and regional governments have to face in order to convince or force hostiles to get vaccinated? Augusto Sinagra, Italian professor of Law and lawyer, once more agreed to answer a few questions.
1) Under what conditions is the famous (and infamous) Compulsory Health Treatment possible in Italy? Is this a purely psychiatric treatment or is the world more generic?
A) The CHT can be arranged at the request of the Mayor of the Municipality or his delegate and on the basis of a report from a doctor. It requires an established, even if only temporary, inability of the subject to self-determine. Medically, the treatment is psychiatric.
2) Has the World Health Organization declared a "pandemic" status for COVID-19 infection or not?
A) From what I understand, it does not seem that the WHO has ever officially declared the status of a global pandemic for Covid-19 infection.
3) What articles of national laws and international treaties could possibly violate a government imposition of COVID-19 vaccination?
A) Any governmental provision of generalized anti Covid-19 vaccination would violate the same legislation relating to the CHT, as well as art. 32 of the [Italian] Constitution and the Oviedo Convention of 1999. Unless there is a justified need to protect public health, but this would require scientifically ascertained certainty of the anti-contagion effectiveness of the vaccine and that this does not cause damage to the health of the person. This certainty is currently non-existent.
4) What difference would it make with compulsory childhood vaccinations?
A) The current mandatory childhood vaccinations respond to the purpose of protecting the health of everyone, as well as of the children themselves and are carried out with vaccines that have been widely tested for years, which respond to the purpose of immunization and do not appear to cause any harm to health.
5) Compulsory vaccine, perhaps indirectly, to access public places, flights, hotels and to continue working. Are we facing perhaps a not so veiled intimidation campaign?
A) This is an instrumental intimidation campaign. Any direct or indirect measure aimed at limiting the rights and freedoms of those who refuse the Covid-19 vaccine would be radically illegitimate and destined for cancellation.