The government-backed “Lex Szarlatan” bill was intended to prohibit pseudo-medical practices that could pose a risk of serious injury or death to patients when provided by individuals without appropriate medical qualifications. It was also designed to protect patients from misleading diagnoses and unverified therapies.
Polish President Karol Nawrocki referred the bill to the Constitutional Tribunal rather than formally vetoing it, effectively preventing the legislation from entering into force pending a constitutional review. The decision has triggered criticism over whether the referral was used as an alternative way of blocking the legislation without assuming the political responsibility associated with a presidential veto.
The controversy has been further intensified by reports that Jerzy Zięba, a prominent promoter of alternative and unconventional medical methods, recently visited the Presidential Palace and discussed the bill. Critics argue that any successful lobbying by proponents of unverified therapies would raise serious questions about the motives behind the presidential decision.
The dispute centres on the balance between freedom of choice and state responsibility for patient safety. Opponents of the presidential decision warn that weakening safeguards against unqualified practitioners could leave seriously ill and vulnerable patients exposed to misleading or potentially harmful treatments, including claims that cancer can be treated through unproven methods such as high-dose vitamin C.
The case has therefore developed into a broader political controversy over whether the protection of patients from potentially dangerous pseudo-medical practices should be treated as a public-health safeguard or as an unjustified restriction on individual freedom of choice.