This is a publication that will make noise. In a forum, published exclusively on the Parisian site, a lawyer and a doctor call for tougher measures and consider that criminal proceedings could be the legal counterpart of a vaccination obligation.
Prosecute the non-vaccinated for administering a harmful substance, endangering the life of others or worse, for manslaughter in the event of transmission of the virus having led to death?
This shock proposal, it emanates this Sunday, January 9 from the forum published on the Parisian site exclusively and is signed by Me Benjamin Fellous, lawyer at the Paris Bar and Pr David Smadja, professor of hematology at the University of Paris.
While the bill on the vaccine pass arrives in the Senate this Monday, January 10, thousands of people marched in the streets this Saturday against the text. A mobilization boosted by the recent remarks of Emmanuel Macron who said he wanted to “annoy” the non-vaccinated. highly criticized, however, the vaccination pass seems insufficient for the two signatories from the tribune of the Parisian, who themselves believe that it is now essential to move towards an obligation to vaccinate.
Compulsory vaccination justified for signatories
For Me Benjamin Fellous and Pr David Smadja, vaccination against Covid fulfills the conditions under which compulsory vaccination can be accepted: “if it is justified by public health considerations and proportionate to the objective pursued. There must thus exist a sufficiently favorable relationship between, on the one hand, the constraint and the risk presented by vaccination for each vaccinated person and, on the other hand, the benefit which is expected both for this individual and for the community in its entirety”.
After recalling that vaccination reduces the risk of contagiousness and severity of the virus, the doctor and the lawyer believe that the “extremely rare” undesirable side effects are largely exceeded by the beneficial and positive effects of vaccines, which reduce transmission, severity, intensive care and mortality.
Which leads to a criminal response
This reflection leads to the following proposition: “there should be a latent criminal risk to be imposed on a person who knowingly refuses to be vaccinated and who transmits the Covid-19 virus.”
In their argument, the scientist and the lawyer argue that a non-vaccinated person can be guilty of the “offence of administering a harmful substance”. An unvaccinated “aware of the seriousness of the virus and able to be vaccinated, which would then contaminate a person who would contract Covid-19 through his fault and who would die or have a long Covid” could be punishable?
The criminal arsenal would allow it in any case according to the two signatories: “these criminal offenses could be the counterpart of a vaccination obligation which, if not respected, could see a criminal translation in the event of contamination of a third party via the characterization of ‘a criminal offence,’ they wrote.
And to conclude by not mince words: “the obligation to vaccinate and the criminal weapon would make it possible to pose a criminal risk to those who transmit death even more than to ‘annoy him’ by preventing him from going to the cinema or to a restaurant“.