Germany’s Health Minister Nina Warken issued a rare Saturday evening statement directly refuting claims made by her US counterpart, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., regarding alleged politically motivated legal action against doctors and patients. Kennedy’s assertions, which remain largely unsubstantiated, have ignited a political debate about medical autonomy and potential government overreach.
Warken’s forceful rebuttal asserted that Kennedy’s comments were “completely unfounded, factually incorrect and must be rejected”. She volunteered to personally clarify the situation for Kennedy, underlining the fundamental principles underpinning Germany’s healthcare system. A cornerstone of this system is the enshrined “medical treatment freedom” granting physicians the autonomy to make independent decisions regarding patient care.
Warken emphasized that the scope of services covered by Germany’s statutory health insurance is grounded in “scientifically proven evidence” and not dictated by political mandates. She further reinforced the patient’s right to choose their desired therapies, highlighting the contrast with potential restrictions observed elsewhere.
The Minister specifically addressed the thorny issue of COVID-19 vaccinations, asserting there was “never” a legal obligation imposed upon German physicians to administer the vaccines. She unequivocally stated that professionals who declined to offer COVID-19 vaccinations, citing medical, ethical, or personal reasons, faced no criminal penalties, professional bans, or financial repercussions.
While acknowledging occasional instances of legal action, Warken clarified that these prosecutions were limited to cases of fraud and document forgery, such as the creation and distribution of falsified vaccination passports or mask exemption certificates. This distinction, she argued, firmly separates genuine misconduct from legitimate concerns around medical freedom and individual choice, presenting a counter-narrative to Kennedy’s wider claims and potentially exposing an attempt to politicize healthcare practices. The unusual timing and direct nature of Warken’s response suggest a heightened sensitivity to the growing influence of alternative narratives surrounding public health measures and their potential impact on public trust in institutions.