The choice of the vaccine to be administered (Pfizer, Moderna, Astra or whatever else will be cleared through customs in the future) is not left to the patient, but (and solely) to the health company, based on the medical history and other clinical data collected. of the subject called to undergo vaccination, and with a view to safeguarding their health, taking into account the vaccines authorized by Aifa and Iss. This is what Section I of the Regional Administrative Court for Emilia Romagna established, with the decree, made ante causam, n. 7, published January 10, 2022.
The controversial story
In the present case, a citizen – in favor of anticovid-19 vaccination and, nevertheless, firm in claiming his right to choose the “type” of vaccine (in particular, Pfizer instead of Moderna) – appealed to the Regional Administrative Court The administrative judge was called to give a very tight ruling, since a request for a precautionary decree ante causam was formulated (ie before starting a real trial (even if only precautionary, in the traditional sense) pursuant to art. 61 of the Code of the administrative process (Legislative Decree no. 104/2010). Significantly, the applicant insisted that the TAR order the health authority to administer – as a first administration – the dose of anticovid-9 sub specie «Pfizer» vaccine.
The refusal of the healthcare company
It should be noted that the appeal was not formulated without prior prods against the company. On more than one occasion, the patient would have declared himself ready to undergo the vaccination, but only if he chose the serum of preference. According to the appellant, in the reference territory, it would always have been allowed “to choose first dose vaccinators whether to do Pfizer or Moderna doses”. Thus, having been denied, he did not give peace. And yet, faced with such requests – so it would seem from the reading of the provision – the Company would have opposed all its unavailability. to the patient’s preference (eg if a “fragile” subject; if frightened by statistically registered side effects or, again, if based on satisfaction with other values, more or less “disclosed” by pharmaceutical companies, etc.).
It does not choose the patient
Well, in the face of the request feared by the patient, the Court replied with a sharp “no”. In essence, one cannot choose or – we could say – “does not choose the patient”. In short, the applicant’s request – to use the words of the Court – “does not appear worthy of positive appreciation”. According to the administrative judges, the choice made by the Administration with regard to the type of vaccine pertains to a pole of discretion that is its own unquestionable.More precisely, based on the reasoning – rapid, surgical and immediate – crystallized in the decree under analysis, the choice of the vaccine to be administered is left solely to the This choice – it is explained – is made by the company on the basis of the medical history and other clinical data collected by the subject called to undergo the vaccination. on the vaccine type, it is “cradled” by the principle of safeguarding the health of the person, and arrives – not in the abstract – but in the field of vaccines authorized by the Ag Italian drug enzia and the National Institute of Health.
The decision of the Tar
Ultimately, the patient cannot be configured – a priori – with any sort of option right to be administered a certain type of vaccine instead of another. to the material administration of the vaccine, the patient must provide informed consent.On the crest of the considerations summarized above, the TAR therefore rejected the patient’s request, for the effect confirming the correctness of the refusal opposed by the administration.