[ad_1]
There is a doubt that hangs in the air and that runs the risk of contaminating the extraordinary result achieved by an increasingly sophisticated science, a result that has allowed, in unexpected times, to create the vaccine that everyone was waiting to archive once a day . the entire dramatic Covid-19 pandemic with its variants. This tragedy has struck and overwhelmed every human being on Earth: for having been directly attacked by it, or for having lost loved ones, or for having lost a job or for having renounced subjective freedoms and sublime pleasures, although postponed. The nebulous discussion centers on whether vaccination is mandatory or not, which cannot be overlooked later in the controversy over who should make this decision, in a framework of strange division of powers between central and local institutions. We will never cease to be grateful for that extraordinary postwar moment in which the most enlightened minds, of vastly different geographical and cultural origins, put the well-being of the country at the center of their action by drafting one of the most beautiful charters in the world. It is no longer fashionable to say it: the Constitution that came into force on January 1, 1948 is one of the most advanced and complete with an extraordinary force that, at the same time, allows us to innovate and preserve. It must be studied in elementary schools by each and every student. The art. 32 establishes that “The Republic protects health as a fundamental right of the individual and in the interest of the community and guarantees free medical care for the indigent”; It was conceived after the serious atrocities of fascism and the destruction of the war, in favor of an extremely suffering country, with very high mortality rates due to the absence of essential treatments. A norm that even today, in a period in which, however, the individualistic spirit prevails over that of the community of the time, provides all the answers to that doubt that snakes through the public debate.
The right to health, although it is for everyone as a way of receiving but also denying care, is certainly individual, but responds to a social function where it allows guaranteeing collective well-being. In the latter cases, its scope can be regulated by law without this being considered a violation of the Constitution. In addition, this principle is also found for the exercise of other rights that we have, but how they can be exercised in certain circumstances and in a social context in which rights of the same nature coexist attributable to other subjects: here the collective good prevails and allows a limitation of its exercise. That is why art. 32 cited allows to reject treatment only when it does not compromise the right to health of other subjects, and finds the maximum expansion where the consequences fall only on the right holder, even if they endanger his life. You have maximum freedom only when you decide for yourself. The examples multiply and many, all the freedoms that we have can be limited if they compromise the exercise of the freedoms of others.
The Constitutional Court has already expressed itself on vaccination at two different times and on specific requests, establishing in 2017 that vaccination is carried out for a social and collective interest and in 2018 in which it affirms that public health is the responsibility of the State. These two statements positively resolve the issue of compulsory vaccination that can be imposed by the State, not the Regions or other subordinate institutions, since only a provision, possibly of parliamentary origin, can guarantee collective health. It should be reiterated that compulsory vaccination was introduced into our legal system as early as 1968 and with Law No. 119 of 2017, although belatedly, the range of compulsory vaccinations has been expanded by adopting a National Vaccine Prevention Plan.
Nothing new under the sun, it would be said, with all due respect to dust-shakers who would do well to put down their weapons because there is already enough physiological confusion and no further stimulation is needed to increase it.
An intermediate position, all to be evaluated and examined, could be, in a first phase, thinking about not going through the obligation, but about conditioning the exercise of some services and fundamental rights to vaccination: those who do not vaccinate cannot use the services of public transport; Those who do not get vaccinated cannot go to the cinema, to the theater, to museums; those who don’t get vaccinated cannot move freely in public places as an example. Perhaps this would suppress, in this moment of political fragility, part of the nefarious and damaging controversies that obscure an extraordinary result: that of finally having a vaccine and organizing its largest distribution in the history of mankind that allows us to rethink, hopefully, about new bases, a more humane work, social and family life.
[ad_2]
