Supported by the Marburger Bund Medical Association, 14 emergency and intensive care physicians have filed a constitutional complaint against the federal Infection Protection Act (IfSG).
As the Marburger Bund announced, the complaint before the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe is directed against the so-called triage rule contained in the law in the event of bottlenecks in the care of seriously ill patients. As a result, doctors are “forced to make borderline decisions that contradict their professional self-image and cause them blatant problems of conscience.”
From the complainants’ point of view, the IfSG thereby violates the fundamental right to freedom of occupation (Section 12 Paragraph 1 GG) and that of freedom of conscience (Section 4 Paragraph 1 Var. 2 GG). Triage means that if there are too few beds or ventilators, for example in a pandemic, doctors determine an order of who will be treated first.
Specifically, the criticism is directed, among other things, at what the plaintiffs believe is an ambiguous regulation of the allocation of limited treatment capacities. It is said that the vagueness of the entire procedure brings with it considerable legal uncertainty for the doctors responsible for making the decision.
In addition, the ban on so-called ex-post triage is criticized, according to which a decision to treat a patient once made cannot be reversed if a patient who has a better chance of survival is admitted at a later date. The Marburger Bund sees this as a conflict with professional ethics: doctors are being deprived of the opportunity to save the largest possible number of people in an emergency situation.
