-A serial in three parts
PART 2 - RIGHTS OF RESIDENTS? Ah, I care ... See part 1 here
In part XNUMX I described how my father was quarantined without mercy and without any substantiation. Are healthcare institutions allowed to do this just like that and if so how does it work? Before I got into the pen, I figured that out.
There are laws that govern quarantine matters. One is the Constitution and the other is the Wpg, the Public Health Act. The Wpg describes procedures for dealing with threats from infectious diseases. In January Rutte chased a legislative amendment through the House of Representatives. This put covid-19 in row A next to contagious conditions such as smallpox (at least a 60% chance of dying), lasso fever (15-20%), ebola (40-90%). Does Covid-19 belong there? I have my doubts. Experts unanimously agree on the very deadly nature of lasso fever, smallpox and Ebola. However, controversy over Covid-19 is widespread.
We first look at the Constitution. Chapter 1, Article 15, states that no one should be deprived of his liberty except where permitted by law. By this the Constitution means that this is only allowed in those cases that are described in a law. For example, criminal legislation; if you have committed a crime, you can go to jail for it. Or the Mandatory Mental Health Care Act. This makes it possible that someone who is mentally disturbed and who is a danger to himself or his environment is obliged to be admitted. In any case, the judge is always the one who decides whether freedom is actually taken.
This also applies to the Public Health Act. It is up to the judge to determine whether someone does indeed pose a risk of infection to others and should be quarantined. But before that, the law prescribes a whole procedure. For starters, there should be a reasonable suspicion that the person is infected. For example, because the person concerned has symptoms or had close contact with an infected person. The doctor, or the head of a (care) institution, establishes this and must report this to the GGD. The GGD must pass this on to the Safety Region and they report it to the RIVM.
Section 3 of the Wpg explains how this will proceed. Once that is done, the mayor or the chairman of the Security Region can have someone admitted to the hospital. But only if the infected person does not want to do this voluntarily. Then they have to make a decision and write it down in a decision. It also states how it will be tested, where the person will be admitted, duration of admission, etc., etc. The person suspected of being infected will then be assigned a counsel (lawyer) and the GGD must supervise the medical side.
Quarantining someone is very drastic; you deprive the person of his freedom. And that is only possible if a judge assesses legality, according to the Wpg in paragraph 4. This is done through the Public Prosecutor. If the officer finds that there is no reasonable suspicion of infection, no quarantine follows. If the officer thinks it is reasonable then a judge must pronounce the final verdict. After all, the Constitution says that no one should be deprived of his liberty except by law. The Public Health Act creates this possibility, but only when the judge makes the final decision.
But my father had no reasonable reason to suspect he was infected. He had no symptoms, neither did we, and we had had no contact with such individuals. Moreover, the institution did not even ask the question. But they do draw the conclusion "infected without a doubt". And that while their own people walk in and out every day and have unprotected contacts all over the place?!?! Are they magically protected against contamination? How much butter do you want on your head? Then it appears that the healthcare institution did not report to the GGD / Safety Region. And also not with the Public Prosecutor who must approve a quarantine. How do we know this? Because we made inquiries by telephone and in writing. In short, one citizen (the institution) puts the other citizen (my father) without thorough substantiation, hupla under lock and key without any form of process. The management has deliberately omitted everything that the Wpg prescribes. And this while a healthcare institution has a legal obligation to safeguard the rights of clients. This is stated in the Quality, Complaints and Disputes Care Act. Article 2 states that the care must meet the real needs of the client (Article 2, paragraph 2a). And furthermore that the rights of the client must be carefully observed and the client must be treated with respect (Article 2, paragraph 2c). Would locking up show respect for my father and his rights? We don't think so.
We spoke to a professor of Legal Sciences at one of our universities and also a deputy judge. He endorsed our view. In short, we weren't about to go ice overnight and what we thought was right; management solves with old people as if their welfare, opinion and rights do not matter. Good looking, against defenseless oldies. You dare.
So I wrote a well-founded letter on behalf of my father and the family to the 'care' institution. I ordered them to immediately return to him his freedom, if any. We received no formal response. Two letters, a complaint, an invitation to talk, various phone calls and apps were not answered, questions via the daily report on medical issues remained unanswered. Oh, no, not at all. There was a response. They had nothing to do with us, the children. The formal contact person, my 82-year-old mother, upset by all conditions, had to get the hot coals out of the fire. But even that was not correct. Apps from my mother to team leader D. were not answered. And indeed, we see the same pattern as in Part I of this serial. When you don't have a leg to stand on, you hide as a management board behind meaningless formalities and the skirts of a woman of 82 who, together with her husband, is a victim of your own manipulations.
After 11 days, the management tested my father. That was possible much earlier but apparently it had to be squeezed in that he had been naughty. Test result negative of course. All the fuss for nothing as we have known for a long time. And my father, not healthy at all, sank even further physically and mentally into the swamp.
Now, without the intervention of a judge, locking someone up against their will, such as putting them in quarantine or isolation, is a crime. Penal Code, Article 282 - Anyone who unlawfully deprives or deprives a person of freedom is punishable by up to eight years' imprisonment or a fifth category fine. Not a word of Spanish seems to me. From a criminal point of view, the management has fulfilled all conditions to be able to speak of unlawful deprivation of liberty. So the next step is to report to the management.
You can read how it went in Part III - About PL meals and hot mash