According to a ruling by the European Court of Justice, all healthcare professionals who urged or vaccinated you against Covid are civilly and criminally liable.

Professor Frajese‘s case before the European Court of Justice had a surprising outcome! According to the Court, a medical prescription was required to administer the anti-Covid vaccines. But there’s more: doctors could have chosen whether or not to administer them, and even advised against them, to such an extent that the potential civil and criminal liability of healthcare professionals is attributable to the specific case.

The reasons given by the Court could thus call into question the disciplinary and criminal proceedings brought against doctors who opposed vaccinations, and instead attribute serious responsibilities to doctors who vaccinated “without ifs or buts”, thus also promoting the risk of causing adverse events. Link to article (in Italian).

“The Court had to confirm, even in a brief parenthesis, that the Commission’s decisions to authorize marketing “do not entail any obligation on doctors to prescribe and administer the said vaccines to their patients”.

He reaffirmed the fundamental principle of the right to freedom of treatment and to choose the most appropriate, safest and most effective treatment by the doctor, in good faith and in all conscience, in the specific case and in the exclusive interest of the patient’s health.

This passage is of extraordinary importance, as it definitively dismantles the charges that have been brought, both in court and in disciplinary proceedings, against all doctors who have advised their patients against Covid vaccination or refused to promote it, thus restoring the doctor’s full freedom of care.

In addition, it confirms the specific liability of vaccinating physicians who have administered the drug inversely, without adequately assessing the appropriateness, risks and safety in the specific case of the patient treated.

More generally, the Court stated that “while the grant of a marketing authorization for a vaccine constitutes a precondition for the right of its holder to place that vaccine on the market in each Member State, that marketing authorization does not in principle entail any obligation on the part of patients or vaccinating doctors”, but above all confirmed that “it is clear from the annexes to the contested decisions that a medical prescription is necessary for the administration of the vaccines in question”. This is what we have always asserted in our appeals in support of suspended workers, who had refused to be vaccinated notably because of the absence of a specific medical prescription, even though in many cases they had asked their doctor for one themselves. The prescription was never issued for any of the millions of doses administered, making all the aforementioned administrations contra legem (valid exemption for those who did not want to be vaccinated), with the legal consequences of the illegitimacy of the regulatory provisions imposing the obligation and the illegitimacy of the “medical act” of the specific administration.”

Let’s talk about the “penal shield” for healthcare professionals. What responsibilities could be attributed to vaccinating doctors?

“The Court’s rulings may influence civil and criminal proceedings aimed at obtaining compensation for damage (biological, moral and property) caused to persons subjected to the said pharmacological treatments, having been administered – on account of the medical malpractice liability of the vaccinating doctors.

– In this case, the medical treatment was administered “in violation of the law” due to the absence of a prior medical prescription (repeatable restrictive prescription, known as RRL). In trying to explain in terms understandable to those outside the sector, the penal shield only works if the medical treatment is administered in accordance with the indications laid down in the authorization acts, which in this case were disregarded, and not just for lack of a careful and adequate medical assessment of each patient hesitating in the formal act of prescribing. “The timing and number of doses administered were very often not consistent with the indications in force at the time of the various administrations, and this prevents the penal shield from being operational”.

The rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union are also binding on national judges, who are faced with the same question: what prospects might there be for the cases still pending, particularly those concerning healthcare personnel suspended and/or struck off during the Covid period?

“As previously stated, the principles set out in this judgment cannot be ignored by national judges, but it is important that they are recalled in a correct and relevant manner. Much will depend on the manner in which the actions giving rise to the proceedings were brought and the grounds and arguments put forward to support the illegitimacy of the measures adopted. It will undoubtedly be fundamental to have raised the question of the infringement of Community legislation and thus to have highlighted the contrast between domestic and European legislation. The CJEU reiterated in several passages of the judgment that it was the task of doctors to assess in the specific case whether or not to administer the Covid-19 vaccines, confirming the need for a prescription to this effect, so that the national rule which conflicts with these principles and, even earlier, with the administration protocols contained in the authorization documents, reaches the limit of inapplicability because it is illegitimate”.

https://curia.europa.eu

Another good analysis in France Soir —

https://francesoir.fr

• The ruling emphasizes that marketing authorization does not oblige doctors to prescribe or administer vaccines. This freedom is crucial: a doctor may, in good conscience and on the basis of his or her expertise, choose not to recommend Spikevax or Comirnaty to a patient, for example, if there are doubts about their relevance or specific contraindications. The Court points out that this decision does not engage their legal responsibility by virtue of the AMMs alone, since the latter do not impose anything directly on them. Doctors therefore retain significant leeway in their practice, in line with their ethical duty to protect their patients’ health.
• Impact on doctors’ liability
  The ruling clarifies that a doctor’s potential liability does not derive from MA decisions, but from the specific circumstances of each patient’s treatment. For example, if an adverse reaction occurs after the administration of a vaccine, the liability of Frajese or another doctor would depend on his or her own act of prescribing or administering, and not on the mere existence of vaccines on the market. The Court insists that the EMA, and not individual doctors, is responsible for verifying the safety and efficacy of vaccines before they are authorized. This relieves practitioners of the obligation of independent assessment of overall scientific data, their role being limited to clinical application in the context of their relationship with the patient.