Can the French be forced to get vaccinated?
October 6, 2009 – October 11, 2009: An opposite viewpoint
Below is an email from a reader:
October 5, 2009
Dear Mr. Petit,
I would like to draw your attention to the relevance of certain statements made by Jane Burgermeister. Can a democratic rule-of-law state force its citizens to get vaccinated?
Conspiracy theory nonsense? Not really.
Apologies for the length. Let me warn you in advance: this is all about law. All this is to say that there are legal and regulatory grounds for such “nonsense.” Legifrance addresses this issue.
A brief legal recap:
In France, there’s a hierarchy of norms. There’s the Constitution. We know about Article 16, which grants extraordinary powers to the President of the Republic in exceptional circumstances—that is, emergency powers.
There are laws passed by the Assembly and Senate, texts designed to regulate individual freedoms (e.g., theft can result in up to three years in prison).
And then there are regulations: those issued by the government (decrees, orders), and those issued by prefects or mayors (orders). The latter do not permit physical coercion. All these have constitutional value.
Thus, if someone steals, they can be placed in custody or even imprisoned; but if they exceed the speed limit of 50 km/h in town, they simply pay a fine.
After this brief recap, here’s how compulsory vaccination could be implemented, and how our government has essentially given carte blanche to the pharmaceutical industry—a license to break rules... The tools exist. So do ways to get away with it unscathed.
Compulsory vaccination exists in France. Example:
Article L3111-8 of the Public Health Code
“In case of war, public disaster, epidemic or threat of epidemic, vaccination or revaccination against smallpox may be made mandatory by decree or prefectural order for anyone, regardless of age.”
This is an example of a law (L) allowing a regulatory authority to take measures affecting bodily integrity. All that remains is to pass a law replacing “smallpox” with “H1N1 influenza.” But we’re “lucky”: R 3116-6 (regulation) of the same code stipulates a fifth-class infraction penalty for refusing smallpox vaccination.
Yet repeat offenses (an offense already established and judged, then repeated) raise the fine to a maximum of 3,000 euros. Legislators also have the option of classifying repeated violations as criminal acts; imprisonment becomes possible.
However, when it comes to children—and here it’s not about smallpox (diphtheria, tetanus)—anyone holding parental authority who refuses to vaccinate their child commits a crime: six months in prison, up to 3,750 euros in fines (L 3116-4).
Yes, this makes sense. But is it reasonable regarding H1N1? You and I both see clearly that they’re selling us an epidemic and deaths. Thus, it’s legitimate to assume H1N1 could be slipped into such legislation. It seems they prepared a legal arsenal tailored to H1N1... two years before the epidemic actually occurred.
Decree No. 2008-733 of July 25, 2008 establishing a Committee to Combat Influenza
It establishes such a committee “for a period of five years,” with clearly defined members and missions:
“It provides the Minister of Health with expert advice on all measures needed to control and reduce the impact of an influenza epidemic or pandemic”[...]
“The Committee to Combat Influenza is tasked with carrying out the duties outlined above, including in cases where the inter-ministerial crisis unit provided for in the National Plan for Preventing and Combating Influenza Pandemic Risks is activated.”
We’ve never seen anything like this for seasonal flu. In 2008, we could’ve created a committee to combat the common cold; it would’ve seemed just as ridiculous. Beware: our government practices fortune-telling: “for a period of five years.” If this committee wasn’t set up for ordinary flu, then for what kind of flu? A mutated H5N1? That seems far too serious, deadly, and contagious to justify dedicating only five years to it. The wording itself undoubtedly refers to an extraordinary epidemic... except it’s July 2008... and no one was talking about swine flu yet. Troubling... From there, it’s a short step to assuming vaccine orders, scaremongering, etc., were premeditated.
In 2007 (even better):
Article L3131-1 of the Public Health Code
Created by Law 2007-294 of March 5, 2007, Art. 1 I, II; published in JORF March 6, 2007; effective August 29, 2007
Created by Law No. 2007-294 of March 5, 2007 – Art. 1; published in JORF March 6, 2007; effective August 29, 2007
“In case of serious health threats requiring emergency measures, especially threats of epidemic, the Minister of Health may, via a reasoned order, prescribe any measure proportionate to the risks involved and appropriate to the circumstances of time and place, in order to prevent and limit possible consequences for public health. The Minister may authorize the relevant regional representative of the State to implement all such measures, including individual measures. These individual measures must immediately be reported to the Prosecutor of the Republic.”
There you have it: the Minister himself and the Prefect (merely regulatory authorities) have a sufficiently vague framework to enact “any proportionate measure.” In other words, since an unvaccinated person might spread disease, forcing vaccination or confinement “limits possible consequences for public health.” Is this reasoning excessive?
One must explain why terms like “individual measures” and “reporting to the Prosecutor of the Republic” are used. In criminal procedure, a prosecutor is notified when a deprivation of liberty measure is taken or a crime committed.
Fortune-telling? Premeditation? Collusion with the pharmaceutical industry? Or extremely intense lobbying sufficient to prompt a government to focus on a non-existent epidemic? This arsenal of special powers, this quasi-Committee of Public Salvation troubles me...
What follows concerns responsibilities even more. Our amended code mentions vaccine manufacturers. I quote:
Article L3131-3 of the Public Health Code
Created by Law 2007-294 of March 5, 2007, Art. 1 I, II, III; published in JORF March 6, 2007; effective August 29, 2007
Created by Law No. 2007-294 of March 5, 2007 – Art. 1; published in JORF March 6, 2007; effective August 29, 2007
[...] Health professionals cannot be held responsible for damages resulting from prescribing or administering a medication outside its approved therapeutic indications or normal usage conditions under its marketing authorization or temporary use authorization, or for any medication lacking such authorizations, provided their intervention was necessitated by a serious health threat and the prescription or administration was recommended or ordered by the Minister of Health pursuant to Article L. 3131-1.” Doctors can now merely invoke conscientious objection or hide behind this text. Best of all: “A medication manufacturer likewise cannot be held responsible for damages resulting from usage outside its approved therapeutic indications or normal usage conditions under its marketing authorization or temporary use authorization, or for any medication lacking such authorizations, provided such usage was recommended or ordered by the Minister of Health per Article L. 3131-1. The same applies to holders of marketing authorization, temporary use authorization, or import authorization for said medication. However, this provision does not exempt them from liability under ordinary law regarding manufacturing or marketing of the medication.**”
Shocking, yes. Worse is that final sentence, which should mean manufacturers shouldn’t be exempt from civil liability. Basically, no criminal penalties, but they’ll still have to pay compensation. Yet the paragraph contradicts itself: it states “A medication manufacturer cannot be held responsible for damages.” I was taught that if one isn’t responsible for damages, it means no fault was committed and no causal link exists, hence no obligation to compensate...
But who cares... because it’s social insurance holders (us) who’ll pay for any potential vaccine-induced disabilities; it’ll take years to establish a causal link between illness and vaccination:
L3131-4:
“Without prejudice to actions that may be pursued under ordinary law, full compensation for medical accidents, iatrogenic illnesses, and nosocomial infections attributable to preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic activities carried out pursuant to measures stipulated in Articles L. 3131-1 or L. 3134-1 is ensured by the National Office for Compensation of Medical Accidents, Iatrogenic Illnesses, and Nosocomial Infections mentioned in Article L. 1142-22.”
One thing seems certain: two years before H1N1 appeared, the government knew pharmacists could be expected to sell poison. Troubling indeed. When confident in a product sold, one applies normal liability rules. This isn’t the case here. Hence no need, two years later, to appear on TV to claim vaccines are harmless.
And politics? As seen, politicians are expressly protected. They’re responsible but not culpable (doesn’t that ring a bell?), especially since 2000. To summarize: when you’re responsible (e.g., for involuntary homicide) but indirectly so (since direct cause would be the vaccine, then the nurse’s hand, then the doctor, then directives, finally the government) = you’re not criminally liable (no prison, no fines).
Article 121-3 of the Criminal Code
Amended by Law No. 2000-647 of July 10, 2000 – Art. 1; published in JORF July 11, 2000
“No crime or misdemeanor exists without intent to commit it.
Nevertheless, when stipulated by law, there is a misdemeanor if one deliberately endangers another person.
There is also a misdemeanor, when stipulated by law, if there is negligence, carelessness, or failure to meet legal or regulatory obligations regarding caution or safety, provided it’s proven the perpetrator failed to exercise due diligence considering, if applicable, nature of duties/functions, competence, power, and resources at their disposal.
In cases described above, individuals who didn’t directly cause harm but created or contributed to conditions enabling it, or failed to take steps to prevent it, are criminally liable if proven they either blatantly violated specific legal or regulatory obligations regarding caution/safety, or committed a clear fault exposing others to a particularly grave risk they couldn’t have been unaware of.” QED, since laws/regulations won’t be broken... = not guilty, but civilly liable... within their official capacity = taxpayers will compensate.
I hope I haven’t bored you too much. It seemed hard to shorten this further; these few legal texts take up space. Thank you for reading this far. I authorize you to share all or part of this commentary, but I don’t want my initials or name cited.
Sincerely,
Thomas L., legal expert
October 11, 2009: An opposite viewpoint:
Mandatory vaccinations? One must face the facts...
In France, there can be no legal obligation to vaccinate
Any obligation would be unconstitutional:
Art. 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Dec. 10-12, 1948: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.”
Any obligation would contradict the new Civil Code, which recognizes:
“the principle of respect for human bodily integrity”.
Any obligation would violate:
Article 36 of the Medical Ethics Code, which states: “Every medical act requires free and informed consent from patients.”
Any obligation would run counter to:
Court rulings dated Feb. 25 and Oct. 14, 1997, explaining:
– Patient information –
“Practitioners must be able to prove they gave patients honest, clear, appropriate, and thorough information, at least concerning major risks, and as complete as possible regarding minor risks. Such information aims to allow patients to decline proposed vaccination if they deem risks outweigh benefits.”
Any obligation would automatically be nullified by:
Law of March 4, 2002, No. 2002-303, Art. 11, Chapter 1, amending Art. L 1111-4 in Chapter 1, Title 1, Book 1 of the Public Health Code:
“No medical act nor treatment may be performed without free and informed consent from the individual; this consent may be withdrawn at any time.”
Therefore, each person is free to accept or reject this medical act—contested by many medical professionals—namely vaccination.
Any vaccination mandate implies, for anyone opposing this poisoning, notions of Resistance to Oppression (a right recognized by the Constitution) and Self-Defense (which doesn’t restrict choice of means!)