Albert, you and your colleagues want to apply the 2G rule in your joint practice in Hanover from January 2022 and only treat those who have recovered from corona or who have been vaccinated.


Sebastian Eder

Editor in the Society department at FAZ.NET.

  • Follow I follow

I run a pure pain practice and have patients whose immune systems are weakened.

For example, because of chemotherapy or ongoing palliative therapy.

In the practice two floors below, intensive care patients are cared for, including those waiting for a heart transplant.

These are special patient groups who can use everything, just no Covid disease.

And since everyone now has the opportunity to be vaccinated, from 2022 we only want to treat patients who have been vaccinated or have recovered.

We only announced that for January so that everyone still has the opportunity to get vaccinated.

Patients can do this directly in our practice.

If you don't want that, just leave it and look for another practice.

But there is also a general practitioner practice in your joint practice, right?

Yes, it is the practice of the colleague who also looks after the intensive care patients.

He also treats children under the age of twelve, which is the only large group that is not yet allowed to be vaccinated.

Of course, this is a little more difficult in general practices.

But there are enough doctors in Hanover who refuse vaccinations themselves.

So it is no problem for vaccine-skeptical patients to find another family doctor.

It would be different in the country, where such a 2G model would probably not be practicable in this form.

In Lower Saxony, restaurateurs, sports and cultural businesses will be able to use the 2G rule in future.

So the pressure on the unvaccinated is already increasing.

Do we really have to extend this policy to medical practices that are supposed to help the sick?

You are addressing an ethical problem.

But this arises on two levels: There are patients who need to be cared for.

And there are patients who are particularly worthy of protection.

The question is: which ethical goal weighs more?

Caring for people who willingly refuse to be vaccinated - or looking after patients who need extra protection?

The decision is very easy for me.

With the decision you don’t give food to people who warn of a two-class society?

I am accused of this in many hate mails.

People who refuse to be vaccinated for no reason turn the tables and call themselves victims.

But it is exactly the other way around: those unwilling to vaccinate want everyone to act according to them.

They are not the victims, they are the perpetrators.

I don't mind if someone doesn't get vaccinated.

But I would like them to accept that I no longer want to treat them in my practice.

Nobody has to come to me, I don't have any emergency patients.

Fortunately, I can now quote our former Federal President Joachim Gauck.

He said that we live in a country where there are not only those who are willing to learn, but also a sufficient number of lunatics.

Do you not contribute to the division of society with such statements?

Again: Society is divided by those who, for whatever reason, do not want to be vaccinated.

Two thirds of the population are vaccinated.

A third remains, around twelve percent are children.

So around 20 percent of the population is responsible for the fact that the remaining 80 percent continue to wear the mask and may have to prepare for the next lockdown in the fall.

In this way, those unwilling to vaccinate divide society - but not me, because I want to protect my patients.

The Lower Saxony Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (KVN) pointed out after your announcement that doctors are obliged to treat, are not allowed to refuse patients in advance and threatened you with a disciplinary committee.

Have you checked your step legally beforehand?