Poland's 'Lex szarlatan' heads to committee amid debate over Patient Ombudsman's powers

Poland is set to introduce "Lex szarlatan," a new law designed to equip the Patient Ombudsman with more effective tools to combat individuals who offer unverified therapies, discourage legitimate medical treatment, or exploit patients' illnesses for financial gain. The legislation, currently moving through parliamentary committees, aims to protect patients from fraudulent practices.

“

At first glance, when I read this law, I thought, 'Surely a lawyer hasn't seen it.' I haven't seen so many generalities and imprecise provisions in a long time.

However, the bill has sparked significant debate among lawmakers regarding the scope and precision of its provisions. Critics, including members of the ruling PiS party, argue that the proposed regulations are too broad and leave excessive room for interpretation. One representative expressed concern that the law's definitions are vague, potentially leading to overreach. Specific worries were raised about provisions allowing the Ombudsman to investigate suspected violations of collective patient rights and the effectiveness of enforcing these regulations online.

A substantial portion of the discussion has focused on the planned expansion of the Patient Ombudsman's powers. Some lawmakers caution that the fight against pseudoscientific practices should not create new problems concerning civil liberties. The current proposal grants the Ombudsman the authority to initiate proceedings, gather evidence, issue decisions, impose financial penalties, and publicize sanctions – a model that critics argue effectively makes the Ombudsman both prosecutor and judge. A proposed amendment suggests the Ombudsman could first order entities to label their activities as pseudomedical, with financial penalties only applied for non-compliance with such orders.

“

The problem is that the state cannot fight one threat by creating another.

Perhaps the most heated objections concern the potential for the law to restrict patients' access to alternative therapies not covered by conventional medicine. Some fear the legislation could lead to excessive state intervention in personal health decisions, effectively imposing a form of preventative censorship. The core tension lies in balancing the need to protect vulnerable patients from exploitation with safeguarding their autonomy and right to choose treatments.

“

This is done deliberately to introduce preventative censorship, so that adult people do not have the possibility...