Constitutional objections raised by Syriza and Pasok against a new psychiatric reform bill have been rejected.
The objections focused on a provision they claimed violated the freedom of contract and patients' rights to choose their doctors.
The provision in question, or else, article 65, is part of the bill for "completing psychiatric reform." It requires private doctors contracted with the National Organization for the Provision of Health Services (EOPYY) to offer their services to address public health needs when requested, but only if no other options are available.
If these doctors refuse, their EOPYY contracts will be terminated, and they will lose access to the Electronic Prescription System.
Health Minister Adonis Georgiadis defended the provision, stating that it ensures public health takes precedence over private practice in emergencies. He accused the opposition of protecting private interests and emphasized that the law is designed for extraordinary situations, adhering to the principle of proportionality.
PASOK representative Dimitris Mantzos argued that the provision infringes on constitutional rights, specifically the freedom of contract and patients' rights to choose their doctors. He also noted that excluding doctors from the electronic prescription system primarily harms patients.
Syriza’s Theofilos Xanthopoulos highlighted the chronic understaffing of the National Health System (ESY) and accused the government of using this issue as an excuse to introduce additional barriers. He said the exclusion from the electronic prescription system significantly impacts citizens who rely on these services.
Thanos Plevris of New Democracy accused the opposition of inconsistency, recalling their earlier demands for compulsory requisition of private doctors during the pandemic without compensation.
He defended the current measure as a necessary, temporary solution under extreme conditions.
Representatives from other parties, including the Spartans, Freedom Sailing, and New Left, expressed concerns about constitutional rights and the potential privatization of healthcare. Despite the concerns, the ruling party's MPs voted to reject the constitutional objection, allowing the bill to move forward.