Our Constitution should be re-read from time to time, based on firm principles, and drawn up in dry language, without superfluous words, and understandable to all. the art. 32, very far ahead of the times and still very modern, defines health protection as a right of the individual and a benefit of society.
Written by Giovanni Monchiero*
The Constitutional Court’s decision on the legality of rulings imposing a duty to vaccinate health care workers and other categories of civil servants was greeted with apprehension enthusiasm about the ruling’s outcome. As if there was a fear that the court, on condition of a minority but a very noisy portion of public opinion and the ambiguous positions of prominent political advocates, might decide otherwise. Instead, the Court reaffirmed the clearer interpretation of Article 32, which had already laid at the basis of the judgment the Law of Lorenzen that introduced the obligation to vaccinate against measles.
The event was hailed in almost all newspapers as a victory for science against obscurantism. The tension reached such a point between those who practiced medicine during the epidemic according to common scientific knowledge and technical methods, and those who, on the other hand, supported the causes of free thought, regardless of knowledge and health. Need.
But science is not built or confirmed in the courts. Nor can they aspire to the role of scientific thought-checkers. Courts deal with the law and with it also the Constitutional Court, which has the role of judge of laws.
I think, from the perspective of the law, this sentence is interesting precisely because it is not innovative. The Court does not adapt the Constitution to the mood of the time – as it sometimes did, unfortunately – but it adheres to the very clear provisions of Article 32 which expressly state that the law may prescribe health remedies even against one’s will.
Our Constitution should be re-read from time to time, based on firm principles, and drawn up in dry language, without superfluous words, and understandable to all. the art. 32, very far ahead of the times and still very modern, defines health protection as a right of the individual and a benefit of society. During a pandemic, protecting the health of society comes before the freedom of self-determination of individuals. One of the many obligations on which the Social Pact is based.
So I joined the chorus of revelers celebrating not so much the triumph of science as of law, applied, in this case, to the often underestimated field of duties. As a citizen, I have to contribute, to the extent of my responsibility, to protecting the health of others who are threatened by a common danger.
Holy words, often forgotten. He immediately contrasted, however, with the moods of politics, at least one in which merely saying the word “duty” causes hives.
It looks like a handful of hardworking senators managed yesterday to get an amendment to the DL about “rave parties” into committee, which freezes the application of fines to health workers, teachers and policemen until June 30. The committee agreed. To avoid Parliament immediately contradicting the decision of the Consulta, all that remained was to hope for the Council.
Without illusions, we nonetheless look with satisfaction at this temporary triumph of law, before the gushing river of the bad habits of the country washes it away.
* Columnist for Health Panorama
“Infuriatingly humble social media buff. Twitter advocate. Writer. Internet nerd.”
