“The refusal to reintegrate unvaccinated caregivers smacks of a scientific and hard-line conception of our law.”

While Italy ended the exclusion of unvaccinated health workers on November 1, and France was one of the last countries in Europe to maintain and strictly enforce it, Olivier Veran repeated, the government’s word, that he did not want to hear about their reinstatement. . ” Schmelblake will not change ‘, he says, symbolically, ‘It won’t bring anything because’ caregivers [non suspendus] They are not keen on the idea We will leave it to others to comment on the political significance of these remarks and to judge what they have to say about the consideration given to people who were nonetheless on deck during the first waves and who, since their suspension, have been deprived of income. We just want to focus here on the law. However, unlike What the Minister seems to say is, in the law, everything is symbolic.To understand this, it is necessary first of all several remarks and reminders.

What does the law say

In terms of observations, it has now been proven that vaccination, although it reduces the risk of serious forms of the disease, does not prevent infection or contamination. From these observations, it can then be considered that from a public health point of view, unvaccinated individuals pose only a risk to themselves and very little to society. At this point, they make them run less because there are too few of them, as the Minister of Health, François Brown, likes to point out.

Also read: Unvaccinated carers: ‘We don’t need these people’, says Matthias Warjon

As a reminder, it is worth remembering the goals assigned to the law. We always remember this famous passage from the Introductory Discourse to the Civil Code of Alice Gate: The Law Office is defining the general principles of the right through broad perspectives. However, we forget that the brilliant programmer stressed that the laws are also and above all ” wills “,” Sovereignty business “and even,” wishes Furthermore, he develops this political role for the law, stating that “ Laws are often the only morals for people Since then, modern jurists have largely insisted on the political role of law.

This refusal: a will, even a draft

Provided these observations and those reminders, what does the continued refusal to reintegrate unvaccinated individuals say about our contemporary understanding of the law? This refusal undoubtedly translates into a will, even a draft. It can no longer be said, for the reasons set out above, that the law serves public health. Nor is it an application of the precautionary principle. Invoking this principle can only be justified if there is a certain risk to society if these individuals are not vaccinated.

However, this is not the case since vaccination can be contaminated and similarly infectious. Moreover, in this regard, invoking this principle seems artificial since they have been vaccinated but infected individuals can continue to practice and similarly expose their patients to the risk of exposure to the virus.

Also read: Unvaccinated caregivers: Senate clears the way for their reintegration

Thus, the purpose of maintaining the suspension can only be an expression of political will. In this regard, it is necessary to listen to the Academy of Medicine which considers that ” Refusal to vaccinate is contrary to the caregiver’s profession “But above all that.” Reintegrating unvaccinated caregivers would be a mistake ” And the ” It would damage the atmosphere of trust and cohesion that must exist between (members of the care team) and with patients (Opinion July 19, 2022). For opponents of reintegrating unvaccinated individuals, we cannot allow people to be treated when they don’t believe in science, question the efficacy of vaccines, or because it would be normal to require those who take care of others to take care of themselves. Some go so far as to say that by refusing to be vaccinated, these employees have shown that they do not live up to the values ​​of care.

The law serves the will and becomes the instrument of morality

These are the ethical arguments being put forward. They are interesting because they reflect a certain concept of health and science. Health above all care values ​​- tacit we find theory Care – And you no longer care about skills. As for knowledge, it is belief. We no longer do science by experience, even if that means setting aside our convictions of yesterday in the face of today’s findings, we must now believe in them. Even worse, science is no longer the fruit of knowledge, but of holding on to a dogma. secularism, which is actually morality (A. Lalande, Technical vocabulary and criticism of philosophy: PUF, 2010), Maxed out: Science tells the truth because it is science. It then appears that by denying the right of practice to unvaccinated individuals the law serves the will and becomes a moral instrument whose disrespect should lead to exclusion: the pure have a right and the unclean should be excluded.

Thus, the refusal to reinstate unvaccinated individuals betrays the development of a scientific and puritanical conception of our society and therefore of our law. It is a confirmation, among other things, of those reactionary legal tendencies that Aupetit identified more than thirty years ago. The eminent author emphasized that scientism threatens law, opening the possibility of the gradual abolition of law (B. Declining the law hypothesis, law and modernity PUF, 1998). Opetit added, The source of modernity is the Promethean ambition, to use the Cartesian formula, to become the master and owner of nature thanks to science and technology: now the West, by becoming modern, has unleashed such an appetite for domination and discovery that it does not stop. It destroys itself as it advances and thus retreats (B. Oppetit, in Retrospective trends in the development of contemporary lawLitke, 1990).

Also read: Unvaccinated carers: The government and the top health authority oppose returning them to work

With this conception of law, as it is seen as an instrument of scientific morality, it is nonetheless so much feared that the promotion of liberty, which was nevertheless the real aim of law identified by Portales, is the greatest forgotten. One. While Carbonnier urged what he called anarchy to allow freedom to flourish, he fears that this puritanical conception of contemporary law, of which the refusal to reintegrate unvaccinated individuals is an example, does not further accelerate the movement of legislative hyperinflation: every moral position has its own law. Since Savonarola at least, we know that morality and liberty rarely go hand in hand. Behind this moral conception of law that seems to us to be the refusal to reintegrate unvaccinated individuals, is the danger identified again by Opetit, the disappearance of the rule of law that could crystallize. Let’s not ignore it: With the moral condemnation of unvaccinated caregivers, our freedom for all that is is threatened.