We are very concerned about the newly proposed permanent ‘corona law’ – the bill to legally anchor the corona measures in the Public Health Act (Wpg). We believe that without unequivocal scientific evidence for the positive effect of the measures taken on public health, these legislative changes should not be implemented.
That is why we sent the letter below to various doctors’ associations on September 12, 2022 – including the KNMG doctors’ federation, the Federation of Medical Specialists and the Dutch College of General Practitioners – with the request to intervene in this medical decision-making.
Unfortunately, we did not receive a response from any of them, with the exception of the National Association of Employed Physicians, which, however, believed that the letter should be brought to the attention of substantive physician associations (which did not respond).
On 14 September we also sent a letter to all members of the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, we have not received a response to this either.
A round table discussion on this bill is expected to take place on 10 October, after which it will be debated and voted on in the House.
The letter to the doctors’ associations is reproduced below:
Dear …,
With this letter, the Doctors Collective wants to draw your attention to the need for a visible, public discussion from the medical associations with regard to the first tranche of amendments proposed by the cabinet for the Public Health Act.
These changes should provide a legal basis for the temporary corona law, which will then become permanent. The cabinet wants this because the Senate refused to adopt a fifth extension of the temporary corona law.
This is a first amendment to the Public Health Act (Wpg), with which the cabinet can, for example, in the event of a resurgence of corona, but also in the case of other diseases, make the measures known by now mandatory. Members of parliament, but also the Association of Dutch Municipalities (VNG), the Association of Mayors (NGB) and the Security Regions are both concerned about the content of the bill and the haste with which it is submitted.
It Advisory board on regulatory pressure advised the cabinet not to submit the bill to the House yet, but to include the results of the evaluation (of the approach and combating the corona pandemic) in the proposal. However, the government does not want to wait for that or for the results of other ongoing investigations and the parliamentary inquiry.
In view of this striking attitude of the cabinet and the ignoring of the need for an evaluation by the Council of State prior to its advice, the Doctors Collective believes that it is essential to send a clear signal to the House of Representatives from your platform as well. both the content and the procedure of these legislative changes.
The basis of objection to these legislative changes is the lack of evidence for the positive effect of the changes on public health.[1] [2]
In our opinion, these legislative changes are a prelude to the removal of medical substantive responsibility from the physician, the possibility of obtaining independent informed consent and ‘shared decision making’ during the fight against epidemics/pandemics. In addition, this creates grounds for medical discrimination and violation of the Nuremberg Code.
If your organization is of the opinion that there is sufficient scientific evidence for the positive effects of the proposed legislative changes, we would like to receive it, so that the opportunity is created to exchange ideas about this urgent matter in the very short term.
Below is a selection of subjects of the First tranche of legislative amendments to the Wpg.
Selection Medical-ethical objections Efirst tranche of legislative amendments to the Public Health Act:
- The amendments provide a permanent legal basis for undesirable medical-substantive interventions from politics in the lives of healthy people, whereby personal autonomy, physical integrity and medical privacy are breached.
- A thorough, large-scale substantive evaluation has not yet taken place.
There is therefore still no testing framework for the medical usefulness, effectiveness, necessity and proportionality of measures, nor for their harmfulness. Data is not made available open source and (requests) for substantive evaluation are trained (see, for example, the Agema motion on this). - The measures in the bill not only have far-reaching consequences for society, but also for medical treatment.
Medical decisions and powers are taken away from doctors and transferred to politicians. - It provides grounds of competence for taking collective action to address A diseases with pandemic potential. That pandemic potential was repeatedly based on models that turned out to be wrong not much later. Such as the conclusions of Imperial College London at the beginning of 2020.
A selection of substantive objections:
- Safe distance standard: Generic distance standards are harmful at both a social and public health level. It limits the build-up and maintenance of herd immunity. It does not prevent the spread of aerosol-forming pathogens.
- Hygiene and protective measures: There is no conclusive evidence for the efficacy of (non-medical) face masks outside the hospital setting in reducing transmission. However, there is evidence that misuse can pose a health risk, as can excessive hand washing.
- The Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport can impose measures on healthcare providers and healthcare locations, which limit the professional consideration as a doctor for the individual patient..
- Quarantine: Not proven useful. Proven harmful social and personal consequences.
- Testing obligation: Testing (PCR) seriously violates the ‘integrity of the body’, the core of our oath. Testing as an entry requirement not only offers a false sense of security, but also unnecessary medicalization and social failure. The results of ongoing investigations and lawsuits should be taken into account before any changes to the law about testing are made.
- Fines: Enforcement and sanctions can be enforced through fines, which can lead to unlawful use of the government’s monopoly on violence and to unjustified discrimination against population groups.
The new normal?
Including the proposed – broad, collective and freedom-restricting – measures in the Public Health Act (Wpg) normalizes an approach to infectious diseases that transcends the domain of health. Not only did everyone experience how deeply the measures interfered with daily life, it also became clear how they had an impact on the mental health of many. People got sick not only from corona, but also from the measures.
Models are not people
The law states that everyone must – always – keep a safe distance from each other. The ‘other’ is thus legally established as a possible source of danger. In doing so, we will collectively fight viruses on the basis of models. People are not models. Not everyone thinks the same, sets the same priorities and/or takes the same risks. What feels necessary for one person to fight the epidemic, is an obstacle to a good and valuable life for another. Social values cannot be captured in numbers and models.
Emergency is not regular
This bill makes measures that restrict fundamental rights part of a regular approach at the expense of humanity and physical integrity. It gives government control over our health and our daily lives. It makes normal what should not become normal.
We’re not there yet
The cabinet has decided to amend the law in tranches. So there are more to come. In view of the medical-ethical objections that can already be noted in the first tranche, we consider it essential that the medical associations actively participate in the preparatory decision-making.
We believe that these legislative changes should not be implemented without unequivocal scientific evidence for the positive effect of the measures taken on public health.
A public emergency letter with your concerns about this to the House of Representatives seems essential at the moment. We are happy to think along with you if you wish.
Yours faithfully,
The board of the Doctors Collective
[1] https://www.pandata.org/wp-content/uploads/PANDA_WHO_Review.pdf
[2] https://artsencollectief.nl/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/ACC_een-open-gesprek-over-de-inhoud.pdf
Disclaimer: The Doctors Collective is not responsible for the content on the mentioned pages of external parties to which reference is made. Sharing a page does not mean that the Doctors Collective shares all views. The Doctors Collective supports the gathering and sharing of (medical) information without censorship in order to stimulate an open conversation / scientific discussion.