Bonsignore: “In Genoa ten doctors threatened to obtain vaccine exemption”
Genoa. Dozens of e-mails sent by doctors summoned because one of their patients demands at all costs the exemption certificate from the anti-Covid vaccine at all costs. Decide to requests for help arrive at the order of Genoa, which on the one hand is starting the first ones disciplinary proceedings towards members close to the world no-vax and denier, and on the other, he studies a defense strategy against attacks that affect even those who have never been in the spotlight on a daily basis.
To report it is Alexander Bonsignore, president of the Genoa Medical Association, interviewed by Genova24 to take stock of the situation. The climate changed dramatically after the (peaceful) demonstration in recent weeks in Piazza della Vittoria support of Roberto Santi, doctor of Sestri Levante in the crosshairs of numerous exhibits because he issued “easy” certifications. Among those called up in these days there is also Stefano Gandus, a 67-year-old Genoese pediatrician, already recalled because he was not vaccinated. But these are not the only cases in the metropolitan area.
Bonsignore, how many proceedings have been initiated to neglect?
They arrived less exposed towards a few colleagues, towards whom few colleagues arrived. In recent months there have been many exposed but the disciplinary action of the orders was in fact blocked by the emergency state. Only in September it was possible to reactivate the proceedings suspended by law. For more than a year now, many citizens have been exposed by freelancers, public and private bodies, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors. There are many bodies that are investigating a series of offenses which in many cases constitute crimes and which have ethical and disciplinary aspects.
What violations are involved? Is it correct to speak of no-vax doctors or is there more?
There is talk of presumptively compliant certificates, we are exposed to disparaging messages against the vaccination campaign and safety devices, exposed for conspiracy campaigns aimed at highlighting that the epidemic does not actually exist, but also cases of professional responsibility in which it is hypothesized that the subjects were given therapies not coded by the scientific community that led to adverse events. Only some of these cases pertain to the no-vax world, others are problems that we faced before 2020.
The no-vax and no movements green passage however, they invoke therapeutic freedom in their defense.
Freedom is there and it is absolute, it is clear that the guidelines must be respected and that is the border. Where it is decided to administer alternative therapies, not codified, in the so-called off label mechanism, first of all the consent of the citizen is required, who must know that the therapy is not that provided for by the international scientific community but is something experimental, and secondly it must be there is an authorization from the ethics committee. In the absence of this, there is a criticality that does not make the physician’s self-determination possible because it is beyond the scientific knowledge of the moment.
How are you proceeding towards them?
It is possible to agree in a single procedure all the complaints with each other, with the same case in point of proceedings, therefore many disciplinary regulations may be opened against these few overlapping professionals. It will be a step-by-step path that will see via the evaluation of all disputes.
What are they risking?
The sanctions provided for by the code of ethics are four, which are added to the possible archiving without any sanction: specifically, a censorship that goes from one day to six months, and then there is the difference that it is never for life but it’s a kind of five-year suspension.
Will you use the hard punch?
The disciplinary commission always act with great serenity and calmness, it is the most difficult to implement a disciplinary procedure against the members and when it is done it is because there are violations that are detrimental to the protection of the health of citizens and also to the detriment of category image.
Apart from the case of Matteo Bassetti who has had a lot of media prominence, have there been sub and intimidations also against other doctors, albeit far from the spotlight?
We are experiencing strong pressure and vaccine exemptions from family doctors. It is a very similar path to the one we witnessed a year ago when instead we perceived pressure from citizens to be included in the ultra-fragile categories and be vaccinated immediately. The world has completely turned upside down. Just as the few and rare conditions of ultrafragility that allowed them to be included in the priority list were very clear and defined, so today the conditions envisaged by the ISS to be included among the subjects exempt from vaccination are very clear and few. Therefore, it is rather useless to put pressure on general practitioners to obtain exemptions from vaccination practice because the doctor has all the tools to know whether the patient respects them or not, and where he could draw up a certificate without the requirements the doctor would be exposed himself to criminal and disciplinary proceedings for the code of ethics. These are pressures that cannot and must not be listened to.
How are these situations treated?
There have been reports from several general practitioners asking the order for help and advice. Let’s talk about a few dozen letters. The answer was to limit oneself to exposing to citizens the certification limits and the risks that the doctor runs.
Do not recommend to report?
We always try to suggest a peaceful dialogue with the patient. As long as there can be a relationship of trust, it must be maintained, if it fails there is a mutual freedom to move away: the doctor can renounce having that doctor among his clients and the patient can do the same. However, this is one of the saddest aspects of this historical moment. We have seen doctors go from being called heroes, which we have always supported because they are professionals who dedicate their lives to patients and have chosen their profession, to murderers, and therefore to the included ones, to the alleged “health dictatorship” and this hurts to those who have put their own life to repentance to save others. Of course, there have also been errors on the part of the scientific community.
That is?
Wanting to put forward beliefs that have proved fragile. Over time we had to back down because the scientific ones were different. As an order we have always asked all our colleagues to keep calm and not to let themselves go to utterances until there is certain scientific knowledge.
Is there anyone who has not behaved correctly?
Not everyone behaved like this and came to order even towards these colleagues who have mystified the role of the doctor compared to that of the political decision-maker. We have always asked for a clear separation between the disclosure of scientific principles and the choices of those who also evaluate economic and social aspects. Hearing doctors talking about whether or not the green pass is right is wrong, hearing politicians talking about the safety or otherwise of an equally wrong vaccine: everyone has to make their own.