The view of the legal scholars interviewed by HS about the proposal made in the opinion column is a sharp no. Liisa Nieminen, Doctor of Laws and Associate Professor at the University of Helsinki, calls the perspective “absolutely incredible from a lawyer’s point of view”.
11.10. 17:20
Could you refusal of a coronary vaccine for reasons of principle will result in the cost of treatment and other compensation being paid from one’s own pouch by a person suffering from a viral disease and hospitalized?
Published in Helsingin Sanomat on October 10 in their opinion text medical advisor Heikki Pälve proposes such an arrangement.
Pälve from Turku retired from the position of Executive Director of the Finnish Medical Association in 2017.
In his opinion, Pälve asks: Could we agree that refusing certain vaccinations for reasons of principle will lead to partial or even full liability for the treatment and ancillary costs of this disease?
According to Pälve, this would also apply to, for example, sick leave compensation.
Heikki Pälve
According to Pälve, “current practice allows the ethos of selfishness to be realized while others bear the consequences of the act”.
Among the consequences, he mentions in his text, among other things, delays in other treatment and the burden on health care, as well as expensive hospital treatment.
Coronavirus The related need for hospital and intensive care is in Finland in sharp growth. The majority of those hospitalized in recent weeks have been unvaccinated.
Last week, the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District (Hus) published its theoretical calculation, according to which the incidence of coronary heart disease can cost up to one billion euros in special care in the coming years. In Hus, the average cost of caring for coronary patients has been 16,338 euros.
Experts have expressed concern about the slowdown in the pace of vaccination. The spread of the epidemic among the unvaccinated may lead to, among other things, the postponement of non-emergency treatment. This could end if the number of intensive care units reserved for coronary patients increases steadily across the country to more than 50, the director said. Pasi Pohjola from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health last Thursday.
Medical Association current executive director Kati Myllymäki says the union agrees with Pälve to increase coronary vaccine coverage. However, the way to achieve this goal should be encouraging.
“The union’s view is that financial penalties do not belong to Nordic healthcare,” says Myllymäki.
According to Myllymäki, it is wrong to blame the patient, whatever the reason for the need for hospital treatment.
“
“From a lawyer’s perspective, the whole perspective is absolutely amazing.” – Liisa Nieminen
“Because In Finland, the use of an coronary vaccine is not obligatory; failure to take the vaccine can be justified even on the basis of conscience or conviction. Article 11 of the Constitution safeguards both of these, ”says the Doctor of Laws and Docent Liisa Nieminen From the University of Helsinki.
“And therefore, there is no obligation to even justify not taking a vaccine. That, too, would be a strange idea that should be justified. ”
It is a matter of sovereignty. In addition, the law obliges everyone to be treated equally.
“Only in the proposal would money safeguard the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and put people in an unequal position. From a lawyer’s perspective, the whole perspective is absolutely amazing. ”
Equally the proposal was directly sharply commented by the docent of constitutional and welfare law Pauli Rautiainen.
“This cannot be done,” says Rautiainen.
“There is no reason to continue the debate on the proposal. In the same way, we cannot exclude, for example, those who are obese or self-injured. That’s not part of our model. ”
The only way to make restrictions on health care is to limit the range of services.
“But it’s a completely different conversation,” says Rautiainen.
According to Nieminen, Pälve’s proposal will not succeed in Finland either.
“It would be easier to make vaccination mandatory. Section 47 of the Communicable Diseases Act would allow this under certain conditions. ”
According to the article, a Government decree may provide for compulsory vaccination if comprehensive vaccination is necessary to prevent the spread of a communicable disease causing serious harm to the life and health of the population or a part thereof.
“However, the coronary situation is apparently not so serious that vaccination would be made mandatory.”
Nieminen also does not believe that the proposal would inspire unvaccinated spikes.
“This is thought to lead to people being scared and going to get vaccinated so they don’t have to pay the costs. People don’t do that. ”
Furthermore, he is not convinced that the cost of thousands of euros in intensive care, for example, could even be recovered.
“Which ordinary person has to pay 16,000 euros? Obtaining it would often require foreclosure. ”
Kati Myllymäki of the Finnish Medical Association points out that the proposal does not take into account who would pay the costs if the patient dies.
.
