The German Federal Constitutional Court has struck down key provisions of the Infection Protection Act relating to triage procedures, a decision sparking intense debate over the balance of power between federal and state governments during public health crises. The court’s ruling, delivered on Tuesday with a 6-2 majority, declared the regulations unconstitutional due to a lack of federal legislative competence, effectively voiding them.
The legal challenge originated from specialist physicians in emergency and intensive care medicine who contended that the triage rules unduly restricted their professional freedoms. The court concurred, finding the limitations on therapeutic discretion and the infringement upon the physicians’ right to practice their profession were not adequately justified under the Basic Law.
Crucially, the court clarified that the triage regulations, designed to establish a prioritized order for intensive medical treatment when resources are scarce, should not be considered measures aimed at containing or preventing the spread of contagious diseases. Rather, they represent a form of post-pandemic legislation, falling outside the purview of federal authority. The rules, intended to guide treatment allocation based primarily on short-term survival probability with explicit limitations on factors like age, gender, or disability, were deemed an overreach by the court.
The decision has been met with mixed reactions. While proponents argue the ruling protects the autonomy of medical professionals and prevents potentially discriminatory treatment decisions, critics express concern over the implications for future pandemic response capabilities. The ruling shifts responsibility for developing and implementing triage protocols back to individual states, potentially leading to a patchwork of inconsistent approaches and complicating coordinated national responses to future outbreaks. Some legal experts question whether this decision significantly weakens the federal government’s ability to effectively address public health emergencies, especially when swift and decisive action is required. The court’s decision raises crucial questions about the definition of federal competency in times of crisis and the extent to which the government can legitimately curtail individual freedoms in the name of public safety.