En June, the French gave themselves a National Assembly which reflected much more faithfully than before the real political state of the country. We can be delighted with this better representation, as well as the strong comeback of a Parliament that is now the unavoidable arbiter of political choices. It would still be necessary for the oppositions to exercise their power in a constructive and responsible way. This is not the case when, in a disturbing convergence, elected officials from the New Popular, Ecological and Social Union (Nupes), the Republicans (LR) and the National Rally (RN) defend the reintegration of health system personnel. and fire and rescue services which have been suspended because they have not been vaccinated against Covid-19.
The vaccination obligation entered into force on September 15, 2021, with the almost unanimous support of health professionals. It was considered to be obvious, with regard to personnel who, through their functions, rub shoulders with the people most exposed to Covid, whose health they are responsible for preserving. The fact, for them, to be compelled to specific vaccinations, such as that against hepatitis B, had also hitherto hardly been debated. The implementation of this new obligation has given rise to a great deal of tension. Caregivers argued the lack of hindsight or efficiency, or personal convictions, to refuse vaccination, and suspensions had to be pronounced.
The “firm opposition” of the academy of medicine
While SARS-CoV-2 continues to circulate strongly and the vaccine protects against severe forms of the disease, reinstating those who refuse it would be tantamount to giving in to anti-scientific arguments and giving up a foundation of public health policy. which makes vaccination a reflex of collective protection and presupposes the exemplarity of caregivers. How could patients maintain their trust in hospitals, clinics or nursing homes, some of whose staff refuse to implement national and international scientific consensus? “None of the rehashed arguments can scientifically validate the refusal to be vaccinated”, who, if he is ” respectable”, rest “incompatible with the profession of caregiver”, has just estimated the Academy of Medicine, reiterating its “strong opposition” to the reintegration of the non-vaccinated.
As for the arguments that such reintegration would make it possible to alleviate the serious shortage of medical personnel, or even to fight more effectively against forest fires, they do not resist the figures. How to maintain that there would be a remedy for a massive systemic crisis, when only 600 of the 240,000 hospital nurses and 75 doctors and pharmacists in the hospital out of 85,000 are lacking? While, overall, the 12,000 people suspended represent only 0.53% of the personnel concerned?
To suggest, as some claim on the left, on the right and on the extreme right, that the return of the unvaccinated would solve the hospital crisis and would serve justice and civil peace is a dangerous demagoguery. Giving in to these arguments would, on the contrary, fuel distrust of the health system and scientific rationality and would fuel conflicts within healthcare teams. By continuing this harmful crusade, the oppositions would give a poor foretaste of the role they can play during a five-year term that promises to be so fraught with challenges.