The Tar rejects “the Tachipirina and watchful waiting”: it is in contrast with the doctor’s activity – FROM ITALY

The TAR suspends the circular from the Ministry of Health which provided for “vigilant waiting” and the administration of NSAIDs and paracetamol (the family “Speranza cure”) during the first days of the illness for patients at home, accepting the appeal of the Home Care Committee COVID-19.


For the judge, the content of the ministerial note “is in contrast with the professional activity as delegated to the doctor in the terms indicated by science and ethics”.

Two years of Tachipirina and watchful waiting have aggravated the Italian citizens who, positive to the covid, could have been treated at home, without necessarily having to end up in hospital to increase the terror numbers.

Therefore, the circular from the Ministry of Health updated to 26 April 2021 is canceled, in the part in which, in addition to providing for the “vigilant waiting” in the first days of the onset of the disease, it also sets out indications of not using all the drugs generally used by general practitioners for Covid patients.

The provision of the Aifa and the Ministry of Hope prevent the doctor’s work and the use of alternative therapies.

For the TAR, “apart from the legal validity of these prescriptions, it is the essential duty of every healthcare professional to act according to knowledge and conscience, assuming responsibility for the outcome of the therapy prescribed as a consequence of the professionalism and specialist qualification acquired.

The prescription of AIFA, as borrowed from the Ministry of Health, therefore contrasts with the required professionalism of the doctor and with his professional ethics, imposing, indeed preventing the use of therapies which the latter may possibly consider suitable and effective to contrast with Covid-19 disease as it happens for any therapeutic activity “.

The conclusion is that “the content of the ministerial note, imposing punctual and binding therapeutic choices on doctors, is in contrast with the professional activity as delegated to the doctor by science and professional ethics”.

The lawyer Grimaldi, who brought forward the appeal, comments “It is the end of the watchful wait, now the responsible doctors”

——————————

Below is the text of the sentence

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

The Regional Administrative Court for Lazio

(Section Third Quater)

pronounced the present

JUDGMENT

on the appeal number of general register 6949 of 2021, proposed by

-OMISSIS-, represented and defended by the lawyers Erich Grimaldi and Valentina Piraino, with digital domicile as per PEC by the Registers of Justice and domicile elected at the Valentina Piraino law firm in Rome, via San Tommaso D’Aquino, 104;

versus

Ministry of Health, in the person of the pro tempore legal representative, represented and defended by the State Attorney General, domiciled by law in Rome, Via dei Portoghesi, 12;

for cancellation, subject to suspension

of the Circular of the Ministry of Health concerning “Home management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection” updated on April 26, 2021, in the part in which, in the first days of sickness from Sars-Cov-2, it only provides for a “vigilant waiting “And administration of NSAIDs and paracetamol and in the part in which it indicates not to use all the drugs generally used by general practitioners for patients with covid

as well as any other connected act, presupposed or consequential, even of unknown extremes, which as of now we reserve the right to challenge,

Given the appeal and its annexes;

Given the deed of appearance in court of the Ministry of Health;

Having seen all the acts of the case;

Speaker at the public hearing on December 7, 2021, Dr. Roberto Vitanza and hearing the defendants for the parties as specified in the minutes;

Considered and considered in fact and law as follows.

FACT and LAW

The applicants are general practitioners and specialists.

With the appeal subject of this scrutiny, the aforementioned challenged the guidelines promulgated by AIFA and slavishly borrowed with the circular of the Ministry of Health “Home management of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2” updated on April 26, 2021, in the part in which, instead of giving valid indications on the therapies to be adopted at home, they provide a long list of therapies not to be adopted, a prohibition that does not correspond to the direct experience gained by the applicants.

In the council chamber on August 4, 2021, the Board of Statutory Auditors ordered, in accordance with art. 55, paragraph 10 of the Italian Criminal Code, the setting of the discussion of this appeal at the hearing on 7 December 2021.

At the hearing on December 7, 2021, the appeal was held for decision.

In the first place, the objection of inadmissibility advanced by the defendant must be rejected because, according to her, the AIFA note, incorporated in the ministerial circular, has its own legal autonomy and has not been independently challenged.

It is necessary to represent that when the aforementioned recommendation was slavishly borrowed in the ministerial circular, it lost all singular value, including its autonomous legal existence and therefore constituted the sole motivation for the disputed provision.

Consequently, the objection must be rejected.

The contested guidelines, as admitted by the defendant herself, constitute mere exemptions in the event of unfavorable events.

Apart from the legal validity of these prescriptions, it is the essential duty of every healthcare professional to act according to science and conscience, assuming responsibility for the outcome of the therapy prescribed as a consequence of the professionalism and specialist qualification acquired.

The AIFA prescription, as borrowed from the Ministry of Health, therefore contrasts with the required professionalism of the doctor and with his professional ethics, imposing, indeed preventing the use of therapies which the latter may possibly consider suitable and effective in contrasting with COVI 19 disease as it happens for any therapeutic activity.

In this regard, it should be noted that the appellate judge in scrutinizing a similar legal matter (the complaint relating only to the determination of AIFA) specified that: “… the AIFA note does not affect the autonomy of doctors in prescribing, in science and conscience , of the therapy considered most appropriate, where its suspension until the definition of the judgment on merit determines on the contrary the lack of guidelines, based on scientific evidence documented in court, such as to provide an aid (albeit not binding) to this space of prescriptive autonomy, however guaranteed “.

Therefore, the content of the ministerial note, imposing punctual and binding therapeutic choices on doctors, is in contrast with the professional activity as delegated to the doctor in the terms indicated by science and professional ethics.

For these reasons, the appeal must be accepted.

The peculiarity of the affair convinces the College to compensate the costs of the litigation.

PQM

The Regional Administrative Court for Lazio (Section Terza Quater), definitively ruling on the appeal, as in the proposed epigraph, accepts it and, consequently, cancels the provision indicated in the epigraph.

Compensate for litigation costs.

It orders that the present judgment be enforced by the administrative authority.

So decided in Rome in the council chamber on 7 December 2021 with the intervention of the magistrates:

Riccardo Savoia, President

Paolo Marotta, Director

Roberto Vitanza, Director, Writer

THE EXTENDER THE PRESIDENT

Roberto Vitanza Riccardo Savoia

THE SECRETARY

Navigation

Skip to content

Administrative Justice Logo

menu search

DCSNPRR

Following the termination of support for the Internet Explorer browser, it is recommended to use other browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, Safari to view the search engine Decisions and Opinions.

Decisions and Opinions

Free search:

Advanced Search

Results per page:

Type of measure:

Site:

Year and measure number:

Cancel Search

9942 records found

Open the original html document 202200419 (ROME, SECTION 3Q) html

JUDGMENT of ROME, section SECTION 3Q, provision number: 202200419, Verification of appeal

… 1, proposed by -OMISSIS-, represented and defended by the lawyers Erich Grimaldi and Valentina Piraino, with digital domicile as per PEC by …

Appeal number: 202106949

Source link

Leave a Comment