Triple victory for Prof. Perronne!!!
The decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber of first instance of 21 October have found in favour of Prof. Perronne in all 3 proceedings on which it had to rule!
It even underlines the prominent role Prof. Perronne played during the health crisis by challenging the government and by being “a dissenting voice on a subject of general interest”.
“His lawyer, Thomas BENAGES, summarises the decisions handed down by the Disciplinary Chamber.”
“On 13 September, Prof. Christian Perronne was heard by the Disciplinary Chamber of First Instance of the Île-de-France Medical Council following two complaints filed in 2020 by the National Medical Council (CNOM) and by Dr Nathan Peiffer-Smadja.”
“The National Medical Council considered that Prof. Perronne had violated the public health code by speaking out in the national press, on social networks and in a book, ‘seriously calling into question colleagues who had treated a member of his family or who had taken part in the public authorities' health decisions’, and, generally speaking, by not having contributed to the public health actions put in place by the government. He was also accused of having disparaged the ‘public health policies’ put in place during the Covid crisis.”
“Dr Nathan Peiffer-Smadja, for his part, considered that he had been personally attacked by Prof. Perronne over the scientific value of his publications, in view of the statements Prof. Perronne made in the media and in the documentary ‘Hold-Up’.”
“In return, Prof. Perronne had filed a complaint with the Medical Council against Dr Nathan Peiffer-Smadja, who had published 14 tweets between May and October 2020 in which he made disparaging, defamatory and insulting remarks about Prof. Perronne.”
“In all three proceedings, the Disciplinary Chamber of first instance found in favour of Prof. Perronne, in decisions handed down on 21 October 2022.”
“First of all, concerning the proceedings brought by the CNOM, the Disciplinary Chamber upheld all the arguments of the defence, which stressed Prof. Perronne's status as an expert and the fact that he was best placed to speak out and challenge the government during the health crisis.”
“The Disciplinary Chamber even concluded that, in view of his status as a specialist, Prof. Perronne had an obligation to speak out:
‘Dr Perronne, a specialist internationally recognised as an expert in the field of infectious diseases, was best placed to understand the public health issues. While he spoke out in the press about the government's action and about the pharmaceutical industry, as he was entitled to do and indeed obliged to do in this field within his competence, he merely voiced publicly, but without invective, a dissenting view on a subject of general interest’.”
“Moreover, according to the Disciplinary Chamber, none of the documents in the file show that at any point he held an ‘antivax’ discourse.”
“The Disciplinary Chamber also considered that the criticisms Prof. Perronne expressed against Ms Agnès Buzyn and Mr Olivier Véran ‘concerned these persons solely in their capacity as health authorities holding a political post. Thus, even though these authorities were also doctors, Dr Perronne cannot be regarded as having disregarded, through the criticisms directed at them, the aforementioned provisions of the public health code’.”
“Concerning the proceedings against Dr Nathan Peiffer-Smadja, the Disciplinary Chamber considered that he had made remarks about Prof. Perronne ‘of a seriously unprofessional nature towards a colleague’, and imposed a disciplinary sanction on him (a warning).”
“Quite logically, Dr Nathan Peiffer-Smadja's complaint against Prof. Perronne was rejected, the Disciplinary Chamber considering that ‘Prof. Perronne's remarks concerning Dr Nathan Peiffer-Smadja were aimed solely, and impersonally, at his capacity as the author of a criticised study’.”
“Thus, through these fundamental decisions, the Disciplinary Chamber has reaffirmed the freedom of expression enjoyed by university physicians when they express themselves impersonally, while underlining the prominent role Prof. Perronne played during the health crisis by challenging the government and by being ‘a dissenting voice on a subject of general interest’.”
“By stressing that Prof. Perronne had never held an ‘antivax’ discourse, the Disciplinary Chamber silences those who use pejorative labels in order to censor him.”
“Through these decisions, the Disciplinary Chamber has therefore recognised that a doctor may hold an opinion different from that expressed by the government, and state it publicly.”
“Finally, through these decisions the Disciplinary Chamber has quite simply reaffirmed the values of our democracy: it is possible to speak freely on a subject of general interest as long as one does not make disparaging, defamatory or insulting remarks.”
Source:
https://www.facebook.com/
The opinions expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent those of BAM!
The standfirst was written by the BAM! editorial team
