A few days ago (14th February), the National Assembly (lower house) of the French Parliament passed a Bill that criminalises certain forms of dissuasion from orthodox or “established” medical treatments, including prophylactic or preventive treatments (which could, potentially, include vaccines), a measure that has attracted national controversy in France and been condemned as a “disproportionate” attack on freedom of expression by the French Counsel of State (Conseil d’Etat).
To help me continue to provide independent content and analysis like this, consider upgrading to a paid subscription.
The legislation in question is part of a bill “intended to support the fight against sectarian aberrations and improve support for (their) victims.” You may be wondering what dissuasion from medical treatment has to do with “sectarian aberrations.” If so, you are not alone. France’s own Counsel of State finds it confusing:
Despite the title chosen by the Government, which refers only to sectarian phenomena, the bill actually covers a wide range of threats and activities, most of which are not based on beliefs or ideologies, and which derive a large part of their danger from the use of social networks.
Article 4 of the bill in question, which is concerned with the protection of citizens’ health, has proved especially controversial. It defines a new crime, which we might loosely translate into English as something like “incitement to treatments or non-treatment that put ill people’s life or health at serious risk.”
Here is what Article 4 of the Bill proposes:
One year in prison and 30,000 EUR fine for “inciting” (“provocation”) a sick person, through persistent pressure or manipulation (“manœuvres”), to abandon or refrain from following a medical treatment, whether therapeutic or prophylactic, in case the incited action is, according to the current “state of medical knowledge” (“en l’état des connaissances médicales”), clearly liable (“susceptible”) to cause grave harms to someone’s physical or mental health.
One year in prison and 30,000 EUR fine for “inciting” (“provocation”) someone to adopt an allegedly therapeutic or prophylactic practice that would, according to the current “state of medical knowledge," clearly expose the patient to an “immediate risk” of death or permanent injury.
If the actions “incited” in 1 and 2 actually produce the harms in question, the person responsible for the “incitement” shall be punished with 3 years of prison and a 45,000 euro fine.
So what is the upshot of the measures contained under Article 4 of the Bill “intended to support the fight against sectarian aberrations and improve support for (their) victims”? Do they criminalise dissent from prevailing medical opinion? Certainly not all such dissent. For example, the mere fact of dissuading healthy people from receiving a vaccine would not, under this law, constitute a crime, since the crime of inciting someone to abandon or refrain from receiving a treatment is concerned with influence over sick people, not healthy people.
However, if someone shares information that encourages people with existing comorbidities to refrain from taking a vaccine that is, according to established “medical knowledge,” necessary to reduce the risk of grave harms to a patient’s life or health, that person could potentially be imprisoned for a year and fined 30,000 euros. And given that the target population of vaccination campaigns very often does include sick people, it is hardly a stretch to argue that public criticism of the safety of a vaccine could constitute “incitement” to non-vaccination by sick or frail people.
In addition, if someone shares information that encourages someone to adopt a novel treatment that is deemed by established “medical knowledge” to expose a patient to an “immediate risk of death or permanent injury,” but such a person does not clearly communicate said risk clearly, they may be liable to one year in prison and a 30,000 euro fine.
We routinely hold doctors legally responsible for reasonably foreseeable harms that befall their patients due to their medical interventions, at least where such risks are due to negligence or not justified by the likely benefits of the intervention. However, there is something very troubling about a law that holds citizens criminally responsible for the potential medical risks that others might incur by consuming their ideas and arguments, or reading their books, or watching their videos online.
This law is not concerned with medical practice per se: rather, it is concerned with speech about medical practice: specifically, it defines a crime of incitement to forms of treatment or non-treatment deemed to put a patient’s health at serious risk according to the current “state of medical knowledge.” “Incitement” to unconventional medical treatments or non-treatment would include, presumably, arguments made in the public sphere on behalf of unconventional treatments or against conventional treatments, whether therapeutic or prophylactic (both fall under the scope of the proposed law).
So a citizen or scientist or physician engaging in public debate about the safest and most effective way to treat or prevent a disease, if their advice is deemed by public authorities to gravely endanger the life or health of sick people, may be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned if this law goes into force.
But on what basis can a prosecutor or judge decide which sorts of speech, rhetoric or advice constitute incitement to medical behaviour with grave risks to the life or health of sick people? According to this bill, the risks of a recommended treatment should be decided by the “state of medical knowledge.”
But this is a deeply problematic proposition, since the level of risk associated with a treatment, as well as its likely benefits, is often a matter of ongoing debate and investigation, that is not scientifically settled for a considerable amount of time. A case in point is mRNA vaccines, whose risks, including the risk of myocarditis, were not widely acknowledged by medical regulators until the vaccination campaigns were well underway.
Appealing to the current “state of medical knowledge” is heavily biased toward the most dominant paradigms and beliefs and heavily biased against novel and dissenting approaches. This cuts against the whole scientific enterprise, which relies on innovation and requires freedom to challenge dominant paradigms of medicine, which cannot reasonably be considered as immune to criticism or error.
A law that shuts people down or criminalises them under the pretext that their ideas might “incite” someone to refrain from taking a conventional treatment, or under the pretext that their ideas might “incite” someone to take a risky treatment, would have a chilling effect on scientific debate and tend to shield prevailing paradigms of medicine from serious challenge. Overall, such a law would constitute a disproportionate and unjustified infringement of freedom of expression, as the French Counsel of State correctly observed:
The Conseil d'Etat points out that when the offences are the result of general and impersonal discourse, for example on a blog or social network, while the objective of protecting health…may justify restrictions on freedom of expression…, a balance must be struck between these constitutional rights, so as not to jeopardise the freedom of scientific debate and the role of whistleblowers by criminalising challenges to current therapeutic practices. It considers that, insofar as they aim to prevent the promotion of so-called 'unconventional' healthcare practices in the press, on the internet and on social networks, such provisions constitute an infringement of the exercise of freedom of expression, protected by Article 11 of the Declaration of 1789 (translated).
Thanks for reading! To help me continue to bring you quality news and analysis on issues affecting your freedom and mine, consider upgrading to a paid subscription, if you have not done so already.
Alternatively, you can make a one-off donation here, or support me on Patreon
Here in Sweden the consensus culture is so strong that I doubt this kind of bill will be necessary. Give it a push and it’ll roll by itself. Chilling.
> So a citizen or scientist or physician engaging in public debate about the safest and most effective way to treat or prevent a disease, if their advice is deemed by public authorities to gravely endanger the life or health of sick people, may be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned if this law goes into force.
REPLY: Something like that has already happened in the US some decades ago. A final resolution has not occurred. The thought police are tightening the noose around the neck of free and open debate concerning health.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro8C75XykLo
I find it amazing that the concern about discussion on health issues is being intimidated by the French law and by FDA/CDC in the above video.
The amazing part is that the same people turn a blind eye to the massive destruction of the environment. Rivers and creeks etc that used to be drinkable and swim-able are now so toxic people stay away. Those companies that create the pollutants, their board of directors and their share holders continue to skate.
The whole picture is a grim farce.