Is it correct to ask for the consent of those who are legally obliged to vaccinate? “The obligation exceeds the need for consent. This means that if I do not sign the doctor can still vaccinate me. But he must inform me in order to take the medical history and evaluate whether to vaccinate me. In short, consent must be separated from being informed”. To respond to the Adnkronos is Cesare Mirabelli, president emeritus of the Constitutional Court, who explains: “The consent in the presence of a legal obligation is necessary if the person intends to get the vaccine but the doctor advises against it”. According to Mirabelli, in case of obligation ‘consent’ must be separated from ‘informed’: “information is always necessary, but consent may be lacking”. The constitutionalist looks at the case denounced yesterday by Codacons of an over 50 whose doctors refused vaccination because he had added a footnote to informed consent: “What the woman wrote is fine. The doctor was wrong not to vaccinate her.” The risk? “A complaint for omission of official acts”. “The signature of the form in the presence of an obligation serves to ascertain that the information has been given and that there is no medical error in assessing its vaccinability”, explains the constitutionalist. The request for signature of informed consent “does not exclude indemnity, which the law expressly provides for compulsory vaccinations: according to the Constitutional Court, as well as when there is a legal constraint even when vaccination is strongly requested in the interest of the community “, specifies among other things the constitutionalist. “Informed consent must be interpreted in accordance with the obligation. It does not mean exemption from liability but control of the correctness of procedures and medical responsibility. There are questions that the doctor asks that could prevent vaccination. More than eliminating it, in the presence of vaccination obligation should be linked to the part relating to the patient’s medical history “. Since disease and infection have two different meanings, the signature of the consent could be decisive in jeopardizing the right to compensation, given the discrepancy between what is written in the decree that imposes the vaccination obligation “… for the prevention of infection by sars … “; and what is indicated in one of the annexes of the consent that speaks of vaccination “… in order to prevent the covid 19 disease caused by the sars cov 2 virus ..”? “The terms ‘infection’ and ‘disease’ do not create disharmony because vaccination is made mandatory to avoid the spread of the epidemic and in the personal interest to avoid being seriously attacked by the disease”, replies the jurist. (by Roberta Lanzara)