Here is the proposal of the League to change the obligation of vaccination

Via the exclusion from the schools, via the discrimination. There will be labels on the desks of the children. None of the pupils of the nursery, or nursery will be “reported” to the effect of a decision of their parents (the one to vaccinate, to vaccinate or in part or no).

No one will be accused of making ill companions, nor expelled mid-year “in order not to compromise the path of relationships, of autonomy, creativity and learning”.

But above all, there will be equal opportunity: the conditions of children 0-6 years will be identical to those of the kids 6-16: the school is a right for all and the prevention of medical (that does not coincide with the status of disease) is the result of a free and responsible choice of the parents.

The premise of the draft amendment to the law 119 on the obligation of vaccination seem to belong to a progressive politics of other times (when the left parties were considered to be of the “broad views”).

Instead, the bill number 363 filed in the Senate on the 14th of may, was wanted by the League. Signed by all the senators, shall enter into the Healthcare commission supposedly in the next few weeks (the commissions have not yet been formed). And then pass to the Parliament.

The first signatory is Paul Arrigoni, the engineer of lecco, the second term in the Senate.

Arrigoni has followed the legislative process of the law 119 from the beginning.

Because you immediately thought to change this law?

“We have always considered illiberal. Has fueled divisions within families and between doctors themselves, many of whom have fear to esprimersthe. Rather than promote access to information has increased the distrust: the adverse events is not denied as well as a choice of medical prevention may not be coercive, and skin of the entrance of the school. Unless there is a conditions emergency infectious that, so far, they have not occurred”.

What do you propose to change?

“For the moment three points. First, in paragraph 3 of article 3 which provides that the certificate of vaccination and is complete with both the requirement of access at the time of registration only for children 0-6 years and not for the larger ones. There is a disparity of treatment that we intend to solve: there is no foundation to admit to the school some children and exclude others. Above is a paragraph that is at odds with other laws on the right to education, on the educational continuity and non-discrimination. Therefore, the evidence of the occurred, vaccination will not be requirement for access”.

And the fines from 100 to 500 euros for each vaccination is made?

“We have not touched on the sanctions. But we have reasoned on the assumption of using the proceeds to strengthen the information services and pharmacovigilance, as has happened, successfully, before the law 119, in the Veneto Region”.

The second point to change?

“It is connected to the first. This is the paragraph 5 of article 3 bis. The law 119 speaks of the decadence of the registration from the schools of Childhood, from the year 2019/20, in the case of lack or insufficiency of documentation. There is always an unjustified difference in treatment compared to what is expected for children from 6 to 16 years. For the latter, no revocation of registration, only the fine”.

But this is not a contradiction to pay for not getting vaccinated? Each fine presupposes an offence, in this case , would presuppose an information and then a choice.

“It is a contradiction”.

The third amendment?

“Paragraph 2 of article 1. We talk about the use of vaccines in the mono components on those who have already contracted those diseases in which antigens are placed in vaccines multiple. But the law 119 also says that, if you do not have the single dose vaccines, you must do the other. We do not say that you must force no one, already immunized, to receive new antigens of disease already contracted, because the Health System has no available formulations. A failure of the Health System may not have an impact on the individual”.

Have you discussed the proposed law with the minister Giulia Grillo?

“Specifically, no. But we met and compared on exclusions from school, she also is to the contrary”.

If the minister would make a decree law to fix the situation with the start of the school?

“Yes.”

When mentioned to the divisions caused by the law 119 he said that some doctors are afraid to say what they think. How do you see the radiation doctors to dissent from the vaccine”?

“Not by the merits but I observe that it is somewhat strange that a State reacts to the criticism with the radiation, is really a bad signal.”

Vaccinations what is the medical expertise and what of the politics?

“…the doctor true, as a scientist, you always put in the discussion, it feeds on doubts, do not delete. The good politician acts with common sense, in balance. Is responsible for public health, which is not in contradiction with the private one: if individuals are good, also the community is in health. Specifically, I hope that you are back in the spotlight with the Commission, and vaccine (which is formed by researchers and independent scholars who decide the vaccinations to be taken)”.

She vaccinated her daughters?

“Yes.”

Original source: http://blog.ilgiornale.it/locati/2018/06/22/ecco-la-proposta-dellla-lega-per-cambiare-lobbligo-vaccinale/