by Luigi Manfra *
The most frequent accusations that critics of the containment measures of the pandemic advance to the government concern two themes: the limitation of freedom and discrimination between citizens in favor of vaccination and those against. Article 32 of the Italian Constitution says in this regard: “the Republic protects health as a fundamental right of the individual and in the interest of the community, and guarantees free medical care to the indigent. Nobody can be obliged to a specific health treatment except by law ”.
The government, as is known, has made the vaccine mandatory for Covid-19 for healthcare personnel only, the security forces and school staff, whose total number is about four million, 17.4% of the total employed. For all the other members of the company, however, the green pass is envisaged, i.e. a digital certificate that allows who received the vaccine against Covid to have access to commercial activities, offices, swimming pools, gyms and hotels.
The choice of this certification, rather than a law to this as the Constitution would allow, appears highly questionable and was taken for reasons of pure political expediency, given the heterogeneous composition of the majority supporting the government. Would have been better extend the vaccine obligation to all even if, it must be said, the green pass does not constitute discrimination against the unvaccinated but is a protection tool for all other citizens who have the right not to be infected.
Massimo Cacciari and Giorgio Agamben, who lead the intellectual branch, do not think in the same way against the imposition of the green pass. The two philosophers argue that “the discrimination of a category of people, who automatically become second-class citizens, is in itself a very serious fact, the consequences of which can be dramatic for democratic life. All are threatened by discriminatory practices. Paradoxically, those enabled by the green pass even more since all their movements would be controlled and it would never be possible to know how and by whom ”.
Leaving aside the delusions about the alleged ability of a state like the Italian one to monitor the movements of citizens, the authors do not say what are the tools with which control could be implemented and the possible consequences that would occur on the democratic life of the country. It should be emphasized that the green pass contains the following data: name, surname and date of birth of the vaccinee, the codes relating to the reference disease, the Covid-19, the type and manufacturer of the vaccine and the numerical series of the inoculated dose. This information, all already known to the Ministry of Health, in one state more technologically advanced, would not have been required of citizens.
That said, it must be recognized that the criticism of the green pass is acceptable even if for different reasons from those overshadowed by the two philosophers. It is, in fact, an expedient that surreptitiously pushes citizens to get vaccinated to avoid penalties of an economic and social nature. More democratic and transparent it would have been to impose the vaccination obligation for everyone, as indeed some European countries are about to do.
Ultimately, the basic element that is not taken into account in the debate on this issue is that the health of the community is a constitutionally relevant right. which prevails over any individual choices, relating to the freedom to refuse any health treatment. In other words, a citizen can refuse treatment for a tumor or heart disease from which he suffers, as the consequences fall exclusively on himself, but he cannot refuse vaccination whose negative effects affect the community.
The protection of the health of the community also constitutes a common good, like water and clean air. As is immediately evident, the ownership of these assets belongs to the community, so the use by a subject must be such as to respect the right of use for other citizens.
A clean river is available to everyone, but if it is polluted, it cannot be used for drinking purposes or to irrigate the land. The behavior of some users therefore prevents the use of the good by others. In order to protect the quantity and quality of common goods, the state often issues laws for their protection as is the case with air and water quality. Similarly, on the basis of the provisions of the Constitution, the State can enact a law that imposes mandatory health treatments, as is already the case for some vaccines intended for children. Public health is an asset to be preserved, whose protection requires responsible behavior on the part of all. The freedom to refuse medical treatments finds a limit in the Constitution which protects the health of the community as a matter of priority.
* Former professor of Economic Policy at the Sapienza University of Rome, he deals with international economics, especially in relation to the Mediterranean.