The irresponsible reinstatement of anti-vaccine doctors sets a dangerous precedent

On 27 October, in the Chamber of Deputies, Fratelli d’Italia and its allies approved a provision introducing an extraordinary procedure for the reinstatement of healthcare professionals struck off the registers due to certain acts committed during the Covid emergency. The following day, speaking at the ‘Giorni della Ricerca’ event organised by AIRC, Sergio Mattarella described prejudicial opposition to vaccines as one of the most disconcerting symptoms of anti-scientific irrationality, pointing out that adults and children can die from diseases against which they could have been protected, and emphasising the need to counter those who poison public opinion. The President of the Republic did not mention the parliamentary vote, but the contrast between his words and the behaviour of the majority is striking: whilst the Head of State denounces the consequences of anti-vaccine propaganda, the Prime Minister’s party is promoting a measure accompanied by statements that lend credence to that very propaganda, portraying the health authorities as responsible for a campaign of persecution.

I had denounced this move on 23 July, in an open letter to the Minister of Health, Orazio Schillaci, published in Il Foglio, detailing the initiative by Fratelli d’Italia MP Alice Buonguerrieri, who had tabled the amendment on 3 March, and the subsequent supportive intervention by Undersecretary Marcello Gemmato, despite the negative opinion which, according to media reports, had been expressed by the Minister. I asked Schillaci to clarify whether he agreed with the decision to offer political backing to anti-vaccine claims and how it was possible for an undersecretary to support a proposal on which the minister himself had expressed a contrary view. Three months on, those questions remain unanswered and the motion has reached the floor for a vote.

The Chamber of Deputies has approved Article 8 of the draft bill on healthcare professions by 126 votes in favour and 113 against. A section of Forza Italia abstained from the vote, whilst other MPs from the party contributed to the result; the eight MPs from Futuro Nazionale, the group linked to Roberto Vannacci, claimed that their support was decisive, and the figures confirm their assertion, because had those eight votes switched from ‘yes’ to ‘no’, the provision would have been rejected by 121 to 118. Fratelli d’Italia therefore championed the initiative, Forza Italia helped to secure its passage, and Vannacci’s supporters were able to present themselves to their own supporters as having been instrumental in its approval. It is difficult to imagine a more eloquent illustration of how an anti-vaccine stance can become a bargaining chip in the internal political competition within the right.

It is worth recalling what was actually approved, because confusion was, in fact, one of the tools used in this operation. During the pandemic, healthcare workers who failed to comply with the vaccination requirement were normally suspended from practising; striking off the register, on the other hand, was a much more serious disciplinary sanction, relating to further conduct deemed incompatible with professional duties. The provision passed by the Chamber of Deputies—which is still subject to completion of the legislative process—allows, under certain conditions, for an exceptional application to be made for reinstatement in the register for non-malicious acts committed during the state of emergency, from 31 January 2020 to 31 March 2022, with the assessment of such applications entrusted to the Central Commission for Healthcare Professionals. No reinstatement is automatic. However, there remains a question that the proponents of the legislation should answer before seeking to amend the disciplinary system: what mistakes did the professional bodies make, how many professionals were affected, and why would the normal appeal and reinstatement procedures be insufficient? To justify exceptional legislation, documented cases and verifiable reasons are required, which so far have not been at the heart of the public defence of the measure.

In their place came statements from Buonguerrieri, who spoke of persecution and a “witch hunt”, and from Lucio Malan, chair of the Fratelli d’Italia senators, who accused opponents of the legislation of longing for a time of hatred and division, whilst questioning the scientific basis of the measures adopted during the pandemic. These are extremely serious accusations against the health authorities, made by representatives of a governing party who would have all the means to verify their validity. If Buonguerrieri is aware of cases of disciplinary persecution, he should document them; if Malan believes that the health measures were scientifically unfounded, he should specify which ones, on the basis of what evidence and in relation to what knowledge was available at the time. Their institutional role makes the casual use of accusations that fuel mistrust of medicine and of those tasked with protecting patients particularly serious.

This is the point on which we must hold political leaders to account. Even small anti-vaccine groups can guarantee a concentrated, vocal and easily mobilised electoral base, which is particularly attractive to parties and candidates seeking to distinguish themselves from their allies. The statements made by the campaign’s organisers and the Vannacci supporters’ claim to have secured the decisive votes demonstrate just how useful this battle has become for gaining political visibility. There is no need to know the private intentions of MPs to judge the choice they have made: they supported an exceptional measure, accompanied it with a narrative of persecution against dissenting healthcare workers, and offered anti-vaccine groups a political victory that they can legitimately claim as their own. The potential electoral gain is immediate, whilst the cost of weakened confidence in vaccinations falls on the entire population.

That cost is well known. Vaccine misinformation influences decisions on which the protection of children, the prevention of infectious diseases and the health of the most vulnerable people depend; when it is spread by a doctor, their professional authority can make it even more persuasive. Professional bodies also exist to ensure that professional titles are not used in breach of ethical duties, and anyone wishing to challenge their decisions has a duty to demonstrate which injustices they intend to rectify. Portraying those decisions as persecution, without providing evidence, amounts to providing fresh ammunition to those who claim that health authorities have deliberately misled or punished the public. Parliament should be aware of the consequences of such a message, particularly in the wake of a pandemic in which misinformation has hindered prevention and contributed to harmful health decisions.

The coincidence with Mattarella’s speech at AIRC makes the irresponsibility of this move even more evident. The immunological knowledge that has enabled the development of vaccines also underpins new therapeutic strategies against cancer, including experimental applications of messenger RNA platforms. While research is opening up treatment possibilities that were hard to imagine just a few years ago, members of the ruling coalition are fuelling a narrative that discredits the scientific institutions on which the credibility of these innovations also depends. The trust required for citizens to accept effective prevention or treatment takes years of work and consistent institutional behaviour to build; yet it takes only a few irresponsible statements – especially when they come from those in government – to reinforce doubts that disinformation has already spread.

The greatest responsibility lies with Giorgia Meloni, because the initiative originated within her party, is supported by an undersecretary in her government and defended by the president of the Fratelli d’Italia senators. The Prime Minister should explain whether she agrees with the accusations of persecution levelled at the health authorities and whether she considers the vaccination measures adopted during the pandemic to be scientifically unjustified. Above all, she should clarify whether she considers it acceptable for her own party to seek political support from anti-vaccine groups by offering them a legislative and symbolic victory, whilst the National Health Service faces far more urgent problems, ranging from staff shortages to inequalities in access to care. Forza Italia is accountable for the votes that enabled the bill’s passage, despite the reservations expressed by some of its MPs; Futuro Nazionale is accountable for the support it has proudly claimed. Those who backed the legislation must specify what benefit to patients justifies the exception introduced and why it should take precedence over health issues of far greater significance.

Schillaci remains; I shall repeat to him the questions I put to him in July. Is it true that the Ministry had expressed a negative opinion on the amendment? Who authorised Gemmato to support it in the Committee, and what official position has the Ministry adopted? A Health Minister who is also a doctor and a man of science understands the value of trust in vaccinations and the role of disciplinary accountability; for this very reason, he must explain how he intends to reconcile his role with a political initiative which, through the statements of its promoters, lends legitimacy to the narrative of anti-vaxxer persecution. Public silence on such a serious disagreement, should the journalistic account be confirmed, constitutes a political problem in itself.

A democracy also recognises the right of anti-vaxxers to organise, demonstrate and seek representation, but those in government have a duty to assess their demands on the basis of the public interest, and not on their ability to win votes. It is precisely this duty that the key figures in this affair seem to have subordinated to political expediency, choosing to give legislative weight to a demand accompanied by inadequately substantiated accusations against health institutions. The most insidious consequence concerns the precedent that is set: if a sufficiently mobilised minority manages to secure exceptional treatment by portraying the application of professional rules as persecution, other groups may attempt to follow the same path, thereby turning scientific and ethical responsibility into a matter of electoral bargaining.

Mattarella pointed out that a priori opposition to vaccines can cost lives, and none of those involved in this operation can claim to be unaware of the danger. Meloni, Buonguerrieri, Malan, Gemmato – the Forza Italia MPs who voted in favour and those from Futuro Nazionale who asserted their role – have had months to reflect on the consequences of their choices, whilst Schillaci has had ample time to clarify the Ministry’s position. They must now publicly account for the health and scientific grounds that would justify this measure, for the allegations levelled at the disciplinary bodies, and for the decision to cultivate political support based on mistrust of medical institutions.

The advantage of this tactic is also evident in the distribution of responsibility: any votes gained are immediate and easily attributable to the politicians who supported the legislation, whilst the consequences of health misinformation may only emerge years later and affect people who will never know which statements contributed to their beliefs. It is one of the most irresponsible forms of electoral opportunism, because it allows one to reap a political benefit whilst leaving the community to bear the risks of one’s choices. Anyone who believes that a few thousand anti-vaccine votes are worth this price should at least have the courage to declare this to the Italian people: because the votes they hope to gain belong to them, whilst the health they are putting at risk belongs to everyone.