In the direction of the government, it was not consulted when the appraisal draft was being drawn up. Therefore, “changes are required with regard to the technical implementation of the recording of the exceptions in the national vaccination register and the implementation times necessary for this”.
“The ELGA GmbH and its implementation partners will need for the technical implementation of the compulsory vaccination via the national vaccination register at least until April 1, 2022”, the expert opinion says literally. In addition, the restriction of the exception recording to contract doctors of certain specialties and the expansion of the central patient index (ZPI) to include people who are registered in Austria but do not have a social security number could not be implemented.
In addition, data protectionists criticize the draft law. The organization ARGE Daten sees “several taboos” in its statement. One of the points of criticism is that the project will introduce a kind of grid search. The presumption of innocence is reversed to suspicion of guilt. The universities give general approval for the compulsory vaccination. However, more than 61,000 statements have already been received on the Parliament’s website.
“Bureaucratic lockdown looming”
Mandatory medical intervention is basically possible for ARGE Daten, but the law threatens a “bureaucratic lockdown” because: “The draft of a penal order file is arbitrary and excessive. It does not suggest any significant impact on the pandemic and contradicts basic rights, especially respect for private and family life. “
In addition to the threat of a “computer search to impose administrative fines”, the data NGO also fears the de-individualization of medical care. In addition, the draft operates with “arbitrary assumptions”, according to the expert opinion. The dynamically changing level of knowledge is insufficiently appreciated.
In contrast, no problems with the government’s plans are seen in the academic field. The Austrian University Conference (uniko) is unanimously in favor of introducing mandatory vaccination. “This is the only way to achieve the high vaccination rate that is necessary from a scientific point of view,” says the reasoning in the expert opinion. Due to the severity of the interference with the legal system, uniko appeals to “anchor the obligation to be constitutionally and consistently in all areas of law”.
The opinion of the Institute for Ethics and Law in Medicine at the University of Vienna is similar. “From the point of view of the IERM, no criticism is to be leveled at the project of a federal law on compulsory vaccination against COVID-19, provided that this is required as a last resort for averting the danger to public health posed by the pandemic,” it simply says in the short statement and further: “Rather, from an ethical point of view, the legitimate protection goal of maintaining a functioning health system as a right of the entire population must be accepted.”
Again, vaccination opponents and skeptics have used the opportunity to comment to flood Parliament’s website with series entries of the same name. There were 61,000 entries on Friday morning. Thus, the search for statements from official bodies turned out to be difficult and was technically only possible specifically by name. On January 17th, the law is to be dealt with in the National Council’s health committee.
Source: Nachrichten
