It appears not only did an Italian Court rule in a case in which an Italian child’s autism was caused by the MMR vaccine, but the Italian government remarkably, accepted Autism was caused by the vaccine but continued to fight cases on the basis that children should receive no compensation whatsoever because the MMR vaccine is not compulsory.
The MMR vaccine concerned, Morupar, contained the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine, just like Pluserix MMR and Immravax MMR vaccines in the UK. The difference is that the UK Urabe vaccines were withdrawn from sale by the manufacturer in September 1992 because of all the injuries they caused. Italy was still using Urabe strain MMR vaccines until 2006.
Now, whether or not there is any compensation, what would you prefer? A child injured for life by a vaccine or not? And if you choose the first option and have no problem, good luck and thank God but if you do have a problem – you will not get any help from the State even though these are their vaccine programmes and by the 21st Century they have wholly failed to develop effective treatments for simple childhood diseases. If they had done, none of our children would be put at risk of the vaccines. That is the success of 21st Century medicine. It sucks.
We report on another case like this from Italy below where the Italian Constitutional Court ruled this was illegal and that compensation should be paid on the basis the government promoted the vaccines even though they were not compulsory.
This is just like the disgraceful state of the English authorities – with the wholly corrupt UK Vaccine Damage Payments Unit. Hardly anyone knows it exists and their job is to deny compensation as far as they possibly can, making up as many spurious reasons as possible to wear down already worn down parents until they go away.
The cost of trying to get money out of these corrupt people in terms of time and money could well offset what is paid out. Since 1998 to 2008 they have paid out on 34 claims – and not much money either – an £80,000 lump sum for a child requiring 24/7 care: FOI Response From DWP – [history of request HERE].
The total paid out on just 34 claims is an average of: £96,544.12. The grand total paid since 1998 is £3,282,500 [about US$ 5 million] for all the cases. The success rate for claims is an abysmal 45 out of 46 cases get nothing. So just 2 in 100 applicants get anything. It is hardly surprising few bother or just give up. Cases are assessed by the Department For Work and Pensions on the same basis as an industrial injury suffered by an adult worker. Children used to have had to be 80% disabled and now it is 60%. This means children are vaccine injured but in addition to making up loads of reasons why the DWP should not pay up the ultimate insult is that the child is not sufficiently disable. There is no legal funding normally either to assist with cases.
CHS previously recently reported on the original judgement of the Italian Courts here:
Here are the details of the Italian Court decision on compensation – ruling the Italian Government has acted illegally. The Italian Constitutional Court’s Decision with an English translation of the article posted on “Autismo & Vaccini“
Important Constitutional Court ruling
Posted by Autism & Vaccines on April 26, 2012
You are entitled to compensation for damage caused by vaccines, even when not required, but recommended.
The Court has declared unlawful the law on compensation in the fact that it excludes non-mandatory vaccines.
Clicking on the photograph you can download the judgment [highlighted in red an essential step], which highlights the public responsibility that comes from vaccination choices, arising from reliance on prevention campaigns, as saying that the choices are not precisely defined as real choices, that is, free and informed decisions.
Judgment is interesting not only because it extends for the compensation for vaccine damage, but also because it helps deepen the political discourse on health prevention and health promotion, from the point of view of the right to be informed, which is a prerequisite for exercising the right choices in health care.
The Constitutional Court confirms the concept expressed by the Court of Milan, Sec. Work, with no judgment. 625 of 13/12/2007: “there is no reason to differentiate the case where medical treatment is required by statute [mandatory vaccination] than where it is, according to an Act, promoted by public authorities in order to become ubiquitous in society [recommended vaccination]. “
CHS sets out a translation of the Italian Constitutional Court’s Decision [this is not a professioinal translation]:
Judgment No. 107
ON BEHALF OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
composed of: Chairman: Alfonso FORTY; Judges: Franco GALLO, Luigi Mazzella, Gaetano Silvestri, Sabino Cassese, Joseph TESAURO, Paolo Maria Napolitano, Giuseppe fridge, Alessandro Criscuolo, Paolo Grossi, Giorgio LATTANZI, Aldo CAROSI, Marta Cartabia, Sergio MATTARELLA Mario Rosario MORELLI,
gives the following
in the judgment of the constitutionality of Article 1, paragraph 1 of law 25 February 1992, n. 210 (Compensation for those harmed by complications of irreversible because of mandatory vaccinations, blood transfusions and blood products), sponsored by the Ordinary Court of Ancona, in the proceedings pending between C. P. and L. E., in the quality of LG’s parents, and the Ministry of Labour, Health and Welfare and the Marche Region, by order dated December 21, 2010, entered at no. Register of Orders 214, 2011 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic n. 44, first special series 2011.
Hearing in chambers on March 7, 2012 the Judge Rapporteur Paul Grossi.
A. – By order of December 21, 2010, the Ordinary Court of Ancona raised, with reference to Articles 2, 3 and 32 of the Constitution, the question of the constitutionality of Article 1, paragraph 1 of law 25 February 1992, n. 210 (Compensation for those harmed by complications of irreversible because of mandatory vaccinations, blood transfusions and blood products), “insofar as it fails to provide that the right to compensation, established and governed by the law and under the conditions laid provided, is also entitled to persons who have suffered injuries and / or disabilities, which are derived from irreversible mental and physical integrity, for being vaccinated, not mandatory but recommended against measles, rubella and mumps. “
He pressed the court to have been invested as an employment tribunal, in an application – to obtain compensation under the contested provision – proposed by the parents of a child who, after vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR ; vaccine “Morupar”, then withdrawn from the market, just days after administration, in the matter in question), he reported – according to the findings of the outcome of CTU – A toxic epidermal necrolysis with iliac vein thrombosis of the left femur, with consequences (“outcomes of intervention drainage of abscess in the iliac fossa – left inguinal region in the context of infection of the pelvis with reactive lymphadenitis secondary to septic arthritis with persistent obstruction of the vein common femoral and iliac estrinsecantesi with edema of the lower left compared with the contralateral right plus 2 cm of the thigh to measure that extends to the foot “) believed to be attributable to the seventh category in Table A annexed to the Decree of the President of the Republic on December 30 1981, n. 834 (Final adjustment of war pensions, to implement the authorization provided for in Article. A law September 23, 1981, n. 533).
Notes in this regard, the court referring the question proposed by the applicant can not be upheld in light of the current regulatory framework, since, even taking into account the decisions of unconstitutionality referred to Case no. And No. 27 of 1998. 423 of 2000 – with which it was extended the right to compensation for those who were vaccinated against polio and hepatitis B in the period preceding the date on which such vaccinations, even though it had already recommended, had become obligatory – its dicta can not be applied in this case. Such judgments, in fact, complement hypothesis pronunciations additive by omission (and non-additive principle) that operate only within the narrow confines of the specific object identified by its device: therefore, with effects limited only to weather the type of hepatitis and polio vaccines B. Hence the need to raise, in reference to the hypothesis of species, the related question of constitutionality, it is not feasible interpretation adeguatrice in ways desired by the applicant, although in this regard have expressed some judgments on the merits. Landing hermeneutic, the latter, however, countered by the jurisprudence of legitimacy, which, evoking the nature of welfare benefits in question, as a form of social solidarity, imposes a strict application of the rule.
In this regard, the national court points out how the law n. 210 of 1992 has introduced key protection in solidarity in favor of those harmed by mandatory vaccinations, blood transfusions or administration of blood products or following treatment activities sponsored or managed by the state for the protection of public health, in accordance with the principles drawn from this Court in judgment no. 307, 1990, where he highlighted the need of the necessary balance between the individual value of health and solidarity between the individual and society, which is the basis of mandatory treatment. Therefore, “in the absence of an indemnity provision, the injured party would be forced to bear alone all the negative consequences of a health care carried out not only in the interests of the individual, but also the entire society.” In this channel are placed, then, remember the ruling by this Court (No. 27 of 1998 and 423 in 2000), the foundation of which – as recalled by the referring
- Was given the finding that differential treatment between those who have undergone vaccination for imposition of the law and those who have submitted an appeal to the joining together for a health program, “would result in a patent irrationality of the law. It would treat, in fact, those who were induced to behave in a utility for reasons of social solidarity favorable treatment than it is in favor of those who acted under the threat of a sanction. “
About the relevance of the question, the referring court observes that it appears in this case established – and not disputed by the defendant – the existence of a causal link between vaccination is practiced at the applicants’ daughter and damage to the physical integrity of the same, just as also documented and non-controversial is the fact that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine has been the subject of an intensive awareness campaign, as evidenced by the various ministerial circulars and administrative acts analytically passed in review by the referring court. The question of compensation, then, was filed within the statutory time limits.
On the non-manifest groundlessness of the question, the referring court points out that the function of law no. 210 of 1992 should be sought primarily in the need to implement fundamental human rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental: namely, art. 2, in reference to the right and duty of social solidarity; art. 3, in terms of the recognition of equal opportunities to all; art. 32, which protects the right to health. Recalled, then, the principles that have formed the core of the above sentences n. And No. 27 of 1998. 423 of 2000, the referring judge stressed that the Constitutional Court – is called, in particular, judgment no. 226 of 2000 – stood in consider that the “reason justifying compensation should rinvenirsi in the protection of the health promotion group – which can be taken to the subject of a legal obligation or any public dissemination policy – and not nell’obbligatorietà already and not so much because of this treatment, which is a mere instrument for the pursuit of such interest. “
The compensation provided by the contested legislation would present, therefore, a ratio related to the need to give solidarity to the preparation of the collective action of remedies in respect of damage suffered by the individual to undergo medical treatment has proved harmful and practiced for the benefit of the same communities. In the conflict between individual interest of the individual to protect his health and protection of the collective health of the community as well, the principle of solidarity, though, on the one hand, may give precedence to the collective interest of the individual, other side “forces to provide an adequate remedy for those who have received damage to health in fulfilling the same duty of solidarity that underpin the right to compensation.” This repair will require, therefore, even if vaccination is not mandatory, but “widely advocated by healthcare institutions,” because otherwise “they would end up sacrificing the minimum content of the right to health of those who were induced by vaccination reasons of social solidarity. “
In this case, the national court points out that the applicants are determined to vaccination ‘to protect the health not only of her daughter, but also of others, in the high risk of infection, and preschool-age children; for involving the public in the early stages of drug control, administration and propaganda. ” Considering therefore, that vaccination was carried out in preparation of a general benefit, “resulting in compression of the right to health of the younger daughter in the name of solidarity with others”, it is reasonable that the community should be to take the same related costs. The failure to extend the compensation would, therefore, for these reasons, contrary to art. 2 of the Constitution
The first complained of lack of protection would also breach Article. 3 of the Constitution, for the irrational unequal treatment of similar situations. It is, in fact, already noted – reports the court – the comparability of the harmful event originated from a mandatory treatment compared to that achieved with medical treatment recommended, always in the public interest, “the State can not ignore or limit his liability in respect of citizens, mostly children, affected by treatments scientifically burdened by a risk of side effects, more or less severe and permanent, after having recommended medical treatment. “
Recalling once again the dicta of the recall ruling by this Court, the court a quo further and conclusively indicates that “in the absence of a fair restaurant in favor of the taxpayer’s medical treatment recommended, it would give the irrational result of the compensation those whose parents have behaved utility behind the threat of sanctions and deny it, conversely, those whose parents have resorted to vaccination for reasons of social solidarity. ” There would, moreover, a further profile of irrationality of the contested provision, since it also extends the benefits of treatments in this case is not required, as referred to in paragraph 4 of that Article. 1, where the compensation is envisaged in the case of vaccination, “to gain access to a foreign state.” Event, this, that does not appear reasonably justify a different treatment than the recommended vaccination and, for reasons of social utility, since travel abroad can be caused by reasons of mere pleasure.
It denounces, finally, also infringes Article. 32 of the Constitution, because the rule would frustrate the object of censorship without explanation the right to health of vaccinated subjects, who, “receiving the vaccination in the name of solidarity” against the associates, have suffered irreversible damage to their health “for a expected benefit from the entire community.”
Regarded in law
A. – The Ordinary Court of Ancona raised, with reference to Articles 2, 3 and 32 of the Constitution, the question of the constitutionality of Article 1, paragraph 1 of law 23 February 1992, n. 210 (Compensation for those harmed by complications of irreversible because of mandatory vaccinations, blood transfusions and blood products), “insofar as it fails to provide that the right to compensation, established and governed by the law and under the conditions laid provided, is also entitled to persons who have suffered injuries and / or disabilities, which are derived from irreversible mental and physical integrity, for being vaccinated, not mandatory but recommended against measles, rubella and mumps. “
The referring court exhibits to be called upon to rule, where an employment tribunal, on appeal – to get the compensation provided for in contested provision – proposed by the parents of a child who, as a result of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR ), carried out using a vaccine later withdrawn from the market a few days after administration, had suffered serious illness, believed to be attributable to the category in Table VII A) annexed to the Decree of the President December 30, 1981, n. 834 (Final adjustment of war pensions, to implement the authorization provided for in Article. A law September 23, 1981, n. 533). Vaccination, although not required – and, therefore, not liable to give rise, when generating the complications provided by the legislation complained of, the compensation provided for therein – it appeared, however, strongly encouraged by public authorities, since it has been the subject of intense awareness campaign, attested by numerous acts in this regard by the public administration. So that would be light on the same principles under which the jurisprudence of this Court has considered extending the compensation provided by law to criticism in favor of categories of persons who had suffered damage as a result of vaccinations in a period in which these were not mandatory, but recommended. All this – he added the court – as a function of proper emphasis to be given to the principle of solidarity, by reason of which the community has to bear, through a specific compensation for damage suffered by the individual, where they undergo a treatment health for the protection of health, not only individually but also collectively.
From here, first of all, the alleged violation of Article. 2 of the Constitution, resulting incoherent legislation which does not include among the users of those benefits, as the daughter of the applicants with permanent disabilities have irreversible effects of vaccinations which was the subject of an incentive for health policy of protection of health entire community, as has been shown to be vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella. It would also violated Article. 3 of the Constitution, because, in the absence of a fair restaurant in favor of the taxpayer’s medical treatment recommended, you would have the irrational result of granting compensation to those whose parents have behaved utility behind the threat of a penalty and to deny it, conversely, those whose parents have resorted to vaccination for reasons of solidarity. Compromise would be, finally, also the art. 32 of the Constitution, since that would unjustifiably nullified the guarantee of the right to health of vaccinated individuals who, by accepting the vaccination in the name of solidarity with the other constraints and solder them to the community, they are found to suffer damage fatal to their health for the benefit expected by the whole community.
2. – The question is based.
3. – On the issue of mandatory or recommended vaccinations, and entitled to compensation for damage to health as a result of treatment provided, this Court has had occasion to say, since the judgment n. 307, 1990 – pronounced in polio vaccination for children within the first year of life, at that time provided as required – that “the law of taxation of medical treatment is not incompatible with Art. 32 of the Constitution if the treatment is directed not only to enhance or preserve the health of those who are subjected, but also to preserve the health of others, since this is just another object, which relates to health as a collective interest, to justify the compression of the human self that is inherent in everyone’s right to health as a fundamental right. “
But if “the constitutional significance of health as a collective interest” – is added – requires that “in the name of it, and thus solidarity towards others, each one can be forced, it being so legitimately limited to self-determination, at a given medical treatment, even if this amounts to a specific risk, “yet it” does not postulate the sacrifice of health of each to protect the health of others. ” It follows that “a proper balance between the two above mentioned equity dimensions of health – and the same spirit of solidarity (to be considered obviously mutual) between the individual and society that is based on the imposition of medical treatment – involves recognizing, for If the risk is true, an additional protection for the taxpayer’s treatment. In particular, would be sacrificed with minimal content of their health rights guaranteed to him, if he had not ensured, however, to the community, and through it the State that has required treatment, the remedy of equitable rest of damage suffered. “
The callback ruling constituted, as is known, the basis on which it was shortly thereafter enacted into law n. 210, 1992 (see the report to the draft Law. Presented at the 4964 House of Representatives July 12, 1990, and merged, along with other parliamentary initiatives, in the preparatory work of the relevant law), and is then gradually gained – on retainer basis that, in any case, vaccination is not “configured as a coercive treatment” (judgment no. 132, 1992) – not only the close correlation in the “constitutional discipline of health”, including the fundamental right of the individual (side ‘individual and subjective “) and interest of the entire community (on the” social objective “) (judgment no. 118 of 1996), because, above all, the need, where the values in question may be in the clutch, risk taking, related to treatment “sacrificing” individual freedom, is reduced to a size of type of solidarity.
Placing himself, also with a view to identifying the ratio of compensatory providence in every situation in which the individual has exposed to risk their health for the protection of a collective interest, it is then argued that under Articles. 2:32 Constitution established the obligation, symmetrically configured in the hands of the same community, “to share, as you can, the weight of any negative consequences” (judgment no. 27, 1998). If it is done to achieve that there is therefore reason to differentiate the case in which “medical treatment is required by law” from “where it is, according to a law, promoted by public authorities with a view to become ubiquitous in society, in which case you cancel the free determination of peoples through the imposition of a penalty, one in which there is an appeal to the collaboration of individuals to a program of health policy. ” “Differentiation – it was made clear – which denied the right to compensation in this second case would result in a patent irrationality of the law. It would reserve it for those who have been induced to behave in a utility for reasons of social solidarity favorable treatment than it is in favor of those who acted under threat of sanction “(judgment no. 27 of 1998) .
It is, in short, derivative that “the reason of determining entitlement to compensation” is “the collective interest to health” and not “obligatory as such treatment, which is simply a tool for the pursuit of this interest “and that the same interest is the foundation of the general duty of solidarity towards those who, undergoing treatment, are suffering from an injury (see n. 226 and n. 423 of 2000).
4 -. On this basis, we can observe, in detail, that if in the prophylaxis of infectious diseases appear decisive prevention activities, designed to prevent and curb the risk of contagion, is decisive in all cases the increased importance of campaigns awareness by the competent public authorities in order to reach and make the widest range of participant population. In this perspective – which is even difficult to define exactly a “public” space of evaluations and decisions (such as due to a collective entity) compared to a “private” choices (as is attributable to simple individuals) – the various actors to realize an end goal – that of the broader immunization against the risk of contracting the disease – regardless of their specific desire to work together: and is completely irrelevant, or indifferent, that the cooperative effect is due, the active side, in an obligation or, rather, to a conviction or even, by the passive side, the intent to avoid a penalty or, rather, an invitation to join.
In the presence of widespread and repeated campaigns in favor of the practice of vaccination is, in fact, naturally develops a general climate of “custody” in relation to what their “recommended”: what makes the choice of each adhesive, to the beyond their particular and specific reasons, in itself objectively also voted to protect the collective interest.
Corresponding to this sort of involuntary cooperation in the care of a common interest objectively, that is truly public, will naturally consider that among communities and individuals to establish proper ties of solidarity, in the sense – above all – that the stories of individuals that can not be regarded, even in perspective “integral”, ie referring to the entire community with the result, among others, that the occurrence of adverse events and complications of the permanent type because of vaccination to the limits and forms of which the prescribed procedures, should be, in fact, the community to bear the burden of individual injury rather than the individual affected to bear the cost of collective benefit.
In terms of values guaranteed in the Constitution, Art. 2, as well as art. 32, the fade, in other words, the importance of strictly subjective reasons (which may have led to the choices imposed or desired by the health administration) justifies the translation in-chief for the community (which is also favored by those choices objectively) of adverse effects may result.
In a context of solidarity essential, moreover, the compensatory measures is intended not so much for herself, such as damages, to repair from harm, but rather to compensate the individual sacrifice considered equivalent to a collective advantage: it would, in fact, unreasonable that the community can, through appropriate bodies, to impose or even encourage behavior directed to protection of public health that it does not then have to answer each of which is prejudicial to the health of those that have been standardized.
In a framework such as that mentioned, it is easy to perceive how the practice of vaccination against measles-mumps-rubella vaccine has been the subject for more than a decade, the insistent and wide campaigns, even extraordinary, information and recommendation by the public health authorities, in their highest instances (with distribution of information among health care is specific both at the population), to the point that, in computing the official website of the Ministry of Health, among the “recommended vaccinations,” still appears that concerned, in line with the determinations of which already Ministerial Decree of 7 April 1999 (New calendar and recommended immunizations for children and adolescents), with circular no. 12 of 13 July 1999 (control and elimination of measles, mumps and rubella through vaccination), the National Plan for elimination of measles and congenital rubella (approved for the period 2003-2007, the State-Regions Conference in session of November 13, 2003 and now, for the period 2010-2015, with Intesa State-Regions of 23 March 2011) and the National Plan vaccines (update 2005). The survey made on this point by the referring court must therefore be regarded as comprehensive for the purpose of demonstrating the assumption according to which the practice in question, although not compulsory under law, is part of that line of health protocols for which the ‘ awareness, information and belief of the public authorities – in line, however, with the “projects of information” provided by art. 7 of Law no. 210, 1992 and assigned to the local health units “for the prevention of complications caused by vaccination,” and in any case to “ensure correct information on the use of vaccines” – is deemed more appropriate and responsive to the purposes of protecting public health with respect to compulsory vaccination.
for these reasons
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
declares the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1 of law 25 February 1992, n. 210 (Compensation for those harmed by complications of irreversible because of mandatory vaccinations, blood transfusions and blood products), in so far does not include the right to compensation under the conditions and manner established by that law, against of those who have suffered the consequences set out in that Article 1, paragraph 1, after vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella.
Decided in Rome, the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, April 16, 2012.
FORTY Alfonso, President
Paul Grossi, Editor
Gabriella MELATTI, Chancellor
Lodged with the Registrar April 26, 2012.
The Director of Stationery