Covid vaccine and compensation in case of damage, what you need to know

In Italy, anyone who undergoes a compulsory vaccination and suffers damage is entitled to compensation. But does it also apply to vaccinations against Covid? According to what studiocataldi.it explains, the law that recognizes this right is n. 210/1992 which provides precisely for the “Compensation in favor of persons damaged by irreversible complications due to compulsory vaccinations, transfusions and administration of blood products.” The limit of this law, however, is evident. In fact, it recognizes economic relief only to those who “have reported, due to vaccinations required by law or by order of an Italian health authority, injuries or infirmities, which have resulted in a permanent impairment of psycho-physical integrity (…).” However, this limit has been exceeded by the Constitutional Court. Compensation is also due for “recommended” vaccinations. The issue of the injustice of compensation for compulsory vaccinations alone was in fact raised a few years ago before the Council. The Court of Cassation referred to the Constitutional Court, which raised doubts about the constitutionality of art. 1, paragraph 1, of the law of 25 February 1992, n. 210, with reference to arts. 2, 3 and 32 of the Constitution “in the part in which it does not provide that the right to compensation, established and regulated by the same law, also belongs, under the conditions provided therein, to persons who have suffered injuries or infirmities, from which a permanent impairment of psycho-physical integrity, due to a vaccination that is not compulsory, but recommended “. In the present case it was a question of damage deriving from the vaccine to counter the spread of the hepatitis A virus. Doubts more than legitimate, also in the light of previous judgments, in which the Council has assimilated the mandatory vaccinations with the recommended vaccinations as ” in the epistemic horizon of medical-health practice, the distance between recommendation and obligation is much less than that which separates the two concepts in legal relationships. the protection of (also) collective health. In the presence of an effective campaign in favor of a specific vaccination treatment, it is natural that individuals develop a trust towards what is recommended by the health authorities: and this in itself makes the individual choice to adhere to the recommendation objectively voted to safeguard also the collective interest, beyond beyond the particular motivations that move individuals. “In light of this ruling, Covid vaccination, not mandatory, but strongly recommended, leads to the recognition of compensation in the event of negative health consequences. Informed consent does not exclude liability The vaccination campaign against Covid also entailed the succession of consent forms and information attachments on the effects of the various vaccines administered, which have created considerable confusion on this point. In any case, it should be specified that the violation of informed consent entails compensation for damage. In fact, the patient must be enabled to express voluntary and above all conscious consent. Fortunately, over the years, jurisprudence has clarified the meaning of this concept. Judgment no. 27751/2013 of the Supreme Court had in fact the merit of defining the extent of informed consent. In fact, the same clarified that: “informed consent, understood as an expression of conscious adherence to the health treatment proposed by the doctor, requires that the latter provide the patient, in a complete and exhaustive way, all scientifically possible information regarding the therapies he intends to practice or the surgical intervention that he intends to perform, with the relative modalities and possible consequences, albeit infrequent, with the only limit of unpredictable risks, or of anomalous outcomes, to the limit of fortuitous, which do not assume relevance according to the “id quod plerumque accidit “, since, once realized, they would in any case interrupt the necessary causal link between the intervention and the harmful event.” The question that arises in this regard with regard to Covid is therefore the following: if you sign the vaccination consent form and the vaccine creates health problems, who should I contact for compensation? ecente was able to clarify in sentence no. 12225/2021, in relation to a drug that has created health problems for a patient, that the manufacturer is responsible if the leaflet has a generic content that does not allow the consumer to be aware of the risks it faces. the state to have to compensate. In any case, the issues related to the pandemic and compensation for damage resulting from vaccination or other issues related to the management of the pandemic are currently still scarce. In fact, the courts will, as always, mark a path in this matter, because they are more immersed than institutions, in the daily reality of citizens.