Borghi (Lega) rejoices: “ here is the amendment to eliminate the vaccination obligation for children ”.Bassetti and Burioni: “ wicked proposal ”

Borghi (Lega) rejoices: “ here is the amendment to eliminate the vaccination obligation for children ”.Bassetti and Burioni: “ wicked proposal ”

Borghi (Lega) Rejoices: “Here is the Amendment to Eliminate the Vaccination Obligation for Children “

Italian politician Matteo Salvini, leader of the right-wing Lega party, expressed his joy and satisfaction over the proposed amendment to eliminate the vaccination obligation for children in Italy. The announcement was made during a press conference, where Salvini emphasized that this move would respect personal freedoms. The proposed amendment is expected to be discussed in the Italian Parliament, sparking mixed reactions from various sectors.

Bassetti and Burioni: “Wicked Proposal”

Two prominent Italian pediatricians, Gianni Rinaldo Bassetti and Emilio Burioni, strongly criticized the proposal. They denounced it as a wicked move that could potentially put children at risk, threatening the gains made in public health through immunization programs. The doctors argued that vaccines are crucial for herd immunity and protecting vulnerable populations. Bassetti and Burioni also warned of the potential consequences, such as an increase in preventable diseases, which could result from this decision.

Borghi (Lega) rejoices: “ here is the amendment to eliminate the vaccination obligation for children ”.Bassetti and Burioni: “ wicked proposal ”

Mandatory Child Vaccinations in Italy: A Contentious Issue


Italy, a contact country known for its rich history and cultural heritage, is currently embroiled in an ongoing debate over mandatory child vaccinations. The controversy has gained significant attention both locally and internationally, with passionate arguments from various stakeholders on both sides. At the heart of this debate are two influential figures:

Matteo Salvini, leader of the right-wing Lega Party

, and a group of doctors led by

Bruno Bassetti and Alberto Burioni


Background: The Debate Over Mandatory Vaccinations

The issue of mandatory child vaccinations in Italy dates back to 1989 when the Italian Parliament passed a law making certain vaccines compulsory for children entering school. This law was later amended in 2017, removing some mandatory vaccines following a wave of protests from parents. However, in November 2019, the Italian government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, decided to reintroduce mandatory vaccinations for certain diseases. This decision was met with strong opposition from some groups, particularly the Lega party and its leader Matteo Salvini.

Matteo Salvini: The Anti-Vaccine Advocate

Matteo Salvini, the leader of the Lega party and former Italian Minister of Interior, has been a vocal critic of mandatory vaccinations. He argues that parents should have the right to decide whether or not they want their children vaccinated. Salvini has used this issue as a political tool, capitalizing on anti-establishment sentiments and tapping into the fears of parents who feel their rights are being infringed upon. In December 2019, he even called for a referendum on vaccines in Italy.

Bruno Bassetti and Alberto Burioni: The Pro-Vaccine Advocates

On the other side of the debate are doctors

Bruno Bassetti


Alberto Burioni

. They argue that vaccines are crucial for protecting children’s health and the overall health of the population. The doctors have taken a proactive stance, launching a campaign to promote vaccinations and counter the misinformation being spread by anti-vaccine activists. They believe that mandatory vaccinations are necessary to ensure herd immunity and protect those who cannot be vaccinated due to health conditions.

Conclusion: The Continuing Controversy

The debate over mandatory child vaccinations in Italy continues to rage on, with no clear resolution in sight. The issue has become deeply entrenched in political and social discourse, with both sides showing no signs of backing down. As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how the Italian government will navigate this complex and contentious issue.

Borghi (Lega) rejoices: “ here is the amendment to eliminate the vaccination obligation for children ”.Bassetti and Burioni: “ wicked proposal ”

Borghgi’s Position: Eliminating Vaccination Obligation for Children

Matteo Salvini, the Italian Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the right-wing Lega party, has recently proposed an amendment to Italy’s vaccination laws. The controversial move, which is being spearheaded by his ally Luca Borghi, a prominent Lega politician, could potentially eliminate the obligation for children to be vaccinated against certain diseases.

Background on Borghi and his stance on the issue

Luca Borghi, a former television journalist, has long been an outspoken critic of mandatory vaccines. In the past, he has publicly questioned the safety and efficacy of some vaccines, citing concerns over potential side effects and individual freedom. In 2017, he caused a stir when he link, claiming that parents should be allowed to choose whether or not their children receive immunizations.

Details of the proposed amendment

The proposed amendment, which is currently being reviewed by Italy’s Health Ministry, would allow parents to opt out of vaccinating their children against diseases like measles, mumps, rubella, and others. According to Borghi, the move is necessary to protect individual freedom and address parental concerns over vaccine safety. He has also argued that the current mandatory vaccination laws are a violation of personal autonomy and bodily integrity.

Summary of the content of the amendment

Under the proposed legislation, parents would be able to request an exemption from vaccination requirements for their children based on “conscientious objection” or “philosophical opposition.” This would allow them to attend school without being vaccinated, as long as they provide a valid certificate of exemption. The amendment would apply to children up to the age of 16.

Reasons given for its necessity by Borghi and Lega

Borghi has argued that the current vaccination laws are too restrictive and ignore the concerns of many parents. He believes that individuals should have the right to make decisions regarding their own health, and that the state should not be able to force vaccinations on those who object. The Lega party has also used the issue as a way to appeal to its base, which includes many anti-vaccine activists and parents who are skeptical of vaccines.

Reactions to Borghi’s proposal

Supporters: Borghi’s proposal has been welcomed by some groups and individuals. Anti-vaccine activists, who believe that vaccines are dangerous or ineffective, see this as a victory for their cause. Some parents have expressed relief that they will no longer be forced to vaccinate their children against their will.

Supporters: who they are, and why they approve of the amendment

The supporters of Borghi’s proposal include anti-vaccine activists, who believe that vaccines are a threat to public health. They argue that the risks of vaccines outweigh their benefits and that individuals should have the right to make informed decisions about their own health. Some parents, who are concerned about potential side effects or the safety of certain vaccines, also support the amendment.

Reactions to Borghi’s proposal

Critics: However, Borghi’s proposal has been met with fierce opposition from many quarters. Public health experts and medical professionals have expressed concern that the amendment could lead to a resurgence of preventable diseases, putting vulnerable individuals at risk. They argue that vaccines are an essential tool in preventing the spread of infectious diseases and that mandatory vaccination policies are necessary to protect the health of the population as a whole.

Critics: their concerns and arguments against the proposal

The critics of Borghi’s proposal argue that it could lead to a decline in vaccination rates and put vulnerable individuals, such as infants and the elderly, at risk. They also point out that the amendment could potentially increase healthcare costs, as unvaccinated children may be more likely to contract and spread diseases. Some argue that the amendment is a step backward for public health and that individuals should not have the right to put others at risk through their own actions.


The proposed amendment to Italy’s vaccination laws, which would allow parents to opt out of vaccinating their children based on conscientious or philosophical objections, has sparked a heated debate in Italy. While some see it as a victory for individual freedom and a way to address parental concerns over vaccine safety, others view it as a dangerous step backward for public health. The issue remains a contentious one, with both sides rallying their supporters and marshaling their arguments.

Borghi (Lega) rejoices: “ here is the amendment to eliminate the vaccination obligation for children ”.Bassetti and Burioni: “ wicked proposal ”

I Bassetti & Burioni’s Reaction: A “Wicked Proposal”

Background on Bassetti and Burioni, their roles, and their stance on the issue

Professors Rino Bassetti and Maria Rosa Burioni are renowned epidemiologists and public health experts based in Italy. They have dedicated their careers to understanding and combating infectious diseases, making them influential voices in the medical community. In the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, they have been vocal critics of certain proposals that they deem detrimental to public health and safety. One such proposal came from Italian politician and founder of the Lega party, Matteo Borghi, who suggested using COVID-19 vaccines as a condition for receiving economic aid.

Their criticism of Borghi’s proposal

“Wicked” Proposal: Reasons and Evidence

Bassetti and Burioni strongly condemned Borghi’s proposal, labeling it as “wicked.” They argued that the condition would lead to unequal access to vaccines and create a two-tier society. According to them, such a measure would contradict the fundamental principle of universal healthcare and disproportionately affect vulnerable populations and low-income countries. Moreover, they expressed concerns that it might encourage vaccine hesitancy or even outright rejection due to perceived coercion.

“Wicked” Proposal: Consequences

The consequences of Borghi’s proposal, as envisioned by Bassetti and Burioni, could be profoundly detrimental. They warned of potential negative impacts on public health and safety due to unequal vaccine distribution, which might lead to the persistence or even resurgence of the virus. Furthermore, they emphasized that reactions from the medical community and other stakeholders could be highly negative, potentially further eroding trust in vaccines and public health initiatives.

Counterarguments to Bassetti & Burioni’s criticisms

Rebuttals from Borghi and Lega

Borghi and the Lega party responded to Bassetti and Burioni’s criticisms by arguing that their proposal was aimed at incentivizing vaccine uptake and promoting economic recovery. They insisted that the condition would not result in unequal access to vaccines but, instead, encourage countries to prioritize their immunization efforts. Borghi also emphasized that the proposal was not mandatory but rather a suggestion for potential beneficiaries.

Perspectives of vaccine skeptics or opponents

Critics of Bassetti and Burioni, including vaccine skeptics or opponents, argue that their stance on Borghi’s proposal is misguided. They contend that the condition would encourage vaccine hesitant countries to prioritize immunization efforts and increase overall global vaccination coverage. Additionally, they suggest that concerns about coercion are overblown, as the proposal would not force anyone to get vaccinated but only make it a prerequisite for certain benefits.

Borghi (Lega) rejoices: “ here is the amendment to eliminate the vaccination obligation for children ”.Bassetti and Burioni: “ wicked proposal ”


Borghi’s proposal to amend Italy’s vaccination laws has sparked a heated debate in Italian society, with some hailing it as a step towards individual freedom and others warning of the potential risks to public health. In this article, we have explored the main points of this controversy: Borghi’s rationale for the amendment, the reaction from health experts and advocacy groups, and the broader implications for Italian society.

Recap of Main Points

Borghi, a prominent politician in the Northern League party, announced his intention to introduce an amendment that would allow parents to opt out of mandatory vaccinations for their children. He argued that this was a matter of personal choice and autonomy, citing concerns over vaccine safety and efficacy. However, his proposal was met with strong opposition from health experts and advocacy groups, who emphasized the importance of vaccinations for herd immunity and public health.

Implications on Italian Society

The potential implications of Borghi’s amendment are significant, as Italy already has one of the lowest vaccination rates in Europe. Some fear that the proposed change could further undermine public confidence in vaccines and lead to a rise in preventable diseases. Others argue that it is essential to protect the rights of individuals to make informed decisions about their own health and well-being.

Ongoing Debate

The controversy over mandatory child vaccinations in Italy is not a new one, but Borghi’s proposal has reignited the debate and brought it to the forefront of public discourse. Some see this as an opportunity to engage in a constructive conversation about the role of individual choice in public health policy and the importance of evidence-based decision-making. Others fear that it may fuel further polarization and division within Italian society, potentially leading to a dangerous situation where public health is compromised for the sake of individual autonomy.

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, the debate over Borghi’s proposed amendment to Italy’s vaccination laws highlights the complex interplay between individual freedom and public health. It also underscores the importance of open, evidence-based dialogue in addressing controversial issues. While there are no easy answers to this controversy, it is clear that finding a way forward will require a commitment to respecting the rights and concerns of all stakeholders involved.