The Constitutional Court is once again dealing with vaccine damage not mandatory but recommended. This was discussed in this morning’s public hearing and this time the focus is on theanti papilloma virus.
Diabetes at 12 years after the vaccine
The case is that of a girl who at the age of 12 developed diabetes mellitus following the third dose of the vaccine. Her parents sued the Ministry of Health but the court of Tivoli six years ago rejected the request for compensation on the grounds that the link between the disease and the vaccine had not been proven.
A link which, on the contrary, was found by an official technical consultancy ordered by the Court of Appeal of Rome, which however believes that there is an insurmountable obstacle on the way to the recognition of the compensation, the law 210 of 1992. Hence the appeal to the Consulta.
Appeal to the Consulta
Under examination is the legitimacy of article 1 of law 210 of ’92, in the part in which it does not provide that the compensation provided for irreversible damage deriving from compulsory vaccinations is also due to those who have undergone the anti papilloma virus, recommended but not mandatory.
Non-mandatory vaccine “but very strong media campaign”
When the 12-year-old underwent the vaccine in 1997, the administration of the anti papilloma “was the subject of a very strong media campaign”, said the girl’s lawyer Joseph Albert Romeoduring the public hearing.
The objective of the Ministry of Health was to achieve vaccination coverage “of 95% of the reference population”, as also recalled by the Court of Appeal of Rome in the order with which it brought the case before the Consulta.
The judges recall previous judgments of the Constitutional Court, recalling that precisely in terms of recommended vaccinations, in the presence of widespread and repeated communication campaigns in favor of administration, as the Consulta has reiterated “the natural development of a reliance on what is recommended by the health authorities which makes the individual choice to adhere to the recommendation objectively devoted to safeguarding the collective interest as well, beyond the particular motivations that move individuals”.
Therefore, they write, “in terms of the interests guaranteed by articles 2, 3 and 32 of the Constitution, the transfer to the community, objectively favored by individual choices, of the harmful effects that may result from the recommended vaccinations is justified”.