Of course, had doctors done so, they would have been punished for “spreading misinformation.” It was the Austrian government that tried to mandate coercive vaccination of every Austrian.
As reported by Global News, on 19 November 2021, Austria was to become the first country in western Europe to reimpose a full Covid lockdown. In addition to lockdown, it would require the whole population to be vaccinated from 1 February 2022. On 8 November Austria had imposed a lockdown on people who had not been vaccinated.
Less than seven months later, in a ten-page answer to written parliamentary questions from MP Mag. Gerald Hauser about liability for the Covid injections, it has become clear: Minister of Health Johannes Rauch apparently gets scared and brushes himself off at the vaccinators.
Doctors would have to provide sufficient information about the benefits and risks of the treatment in advance so that the person concerned can make an informed and free decision.
Question 1: What does the vaccinating doctor have to explain to the patient? Rauch’s answer stated:
“According to the settled case law of the Supreme Court, the treatment contract concluded with the doctor includes the obligation to inform patients about the possible dangers and harmful consequences of the treatment. This obligation to provide information also applies to vaccinations.
“The function of the information is to protect the freedom of choice of the person concerned. The person to be informed should be given the information he or she needs to understand the nature, significance and scope of a medical measure. Information about the benefits and risks should therefore be given to the extent that the person concerned needs help in making a decision.”
Answers to Written Parliamentary Questions, John Rauch, 3 June 2022
The consequences for doctors are also mentioned in the answer to Question 2: What are the consequences for a doctor if the patients not objective and unsatisfactory be enlightened?
“… inadequate information that does not correspond to the state of medical science is a violation of medical professional duties. This can be punished under administrative and/or disciplinary law as well as have consequences under liability law.”
Answers to Written Parliamentary Questions, John Rauch, 3 June 2022
Responding to Question 18d regarding the consequences if a person, who has the legal obligation to report the lack of effect (vaccine breakthrough) of a medicine, repeatedly fails to do so, Rauch answers:
“The relevant sanction standard can be found in § 83 para. 1 no. 14 of the Medicines Act, according to which the person who violates their reporting obligation pursuant to §§ 75g (75n or 75q) if the act does not constitute a criminal offence falling within the jurisdiction of the courts is guilty of an administrative offence and is to be punished with a fine of up to 7,500 euros, or up to 14,000 euros in the event of a recurrence.”
Answers to Written Parliamentary Questions, John Rauch, 3 June 2022
The parliamentary questions and answers are in German. We have translated them into English using Google translate and attached the English version below.
Rauch-Answering-the-request-English
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post