While the Scientific Council declares itself “reserved” on a possible reintegration of caregivers not vaccinated against Covid-19, their reintegration “is not a rehabilitation“, tempered Wednesday July 20 on franceinfo Emmanuel Hirsch, professor of medical ethics. The Council underlines in its opinion delivered to the government, published Wednesday, that the seventh wave of the epidemic remains “very present“. 700 nurses and less than 80 doctors and pharmacists are concerned by this question. This Wednesday on franceinfo, Mathias Wargon, head of Smur emergencies at the Delafontaine Hospital in Saint-Denis denounced “populism” and “demagoguery” of LFI and the RN. For his part, Emmanuel Hirsch considers that this reintegration is “a political choice“and is not”a populist question“. He pleads appeasement and underlines the “need to regain cohesion, social ties, reciprocal respect“.
franceinfo: What do you think of this idea of reintegrating unvaccinated caregivers?
Emanuel Hirsch: It is a political question, a political choice, insofar as it also engages the image and the seriousness of what the governance of the pandemic has been so far. Future events should be anticipated and there should be a real debate on compulsory vaccination for all. And from an ethical point of view, when you approach all these questions, four criteria are important. It is the necessity. Is it necessary today? The second point is proportionality. And then you also have a criterion which is important, it is the reversibility of a measure, therefore, the possibility of discernment in a context of evolution, where we must prepare ourselves again to live with the Covid-19 . And this is not giving a guarantee to people who have not been vaccinated. Last point: you have an opinion from the National Ethics Advisory Committee of September 2021 which relates to public health, which says, for there to be consent, there must be consultation. Perhaps the urgency is consultation. And when I heard Mathias Wargon talk about the populist side, it’s not a populist question. It is a question of the acceptability of measures which are difficult.
Do you plead more appeasement to reintegrate these caregivers?
We live in a fragile, fractured society. We need to regain cohesion, social ties, reciprocal respect, accountability, and I don’t think that will be done by casting discredit and anathema on people who, at the very beginning of the crisis, went to the field, to nursing homes, to hospital services without the slightest support, without the slightest means.
“These carers have often been considered heroes. And overnight, to repudiate them in such a rapid and brutal way is a problem for me”.
Emmanuel Hirsch, professor of medical ethicsfranceinfo
You do not relativize vaccine effectiveness?
I do not relativize it. I was attentive to the position of the National Academy of Medicine. Very quickly, she said in March 2021 that the vaccination of caregivers is something compulsory. And remember that even on May 25, 2021, we were talking about obligation. She said that the obligation for the entire population should not be considered a dirty word. So I understand that logic. I understand this rigor and firmness. Especially since there were still 300 deaths of people as a result of nosocomial infections, that is to say hospitalized people. That one does not give in my intervention the feeling to look lightly at a difficult situation which is delicate. But I think we need calm. And know that today there are professionals who, because there is a lack of teams, are sometimes contaminated themselves, wear masks, of course, but who are called upon to intervene when logically, they should not not do it. It takes a little bit of discernment today.
Does the argument which consists in saying that these personnel are “indispensable” still stand? We are talking about 700 nurses, less than 80 doctors and pharmacists.
Especially since you have among these people people who have rebuilt their lives, that is to say they will no longer return to the sphere of health. So I think there’s a general disenchantment. It is not a question of telling these people, you have not assumed a responsibility. This is in no way to excuse them. In the position of the National Academy of Medicine, we say that it would be a mistake to go back on this position. I’m not saying that I dispute this position, but there is no need to make people feel guilty. These are people who, at some point, have made a decision and I think they would be likely to see things differently, if they were shown some form of concern today. This reintegration is not a rehabilitation. It is the possibility of not leaving people excluded from the debate that we must all have today in relation to the future.