“Please produce the court order releasing Emil Jędrzejewski from medical confidentiality,” the association Lawyers for Poland appealed to Prosecutor General Waldemar Żurek. The organization has raised concerns about the case and warns against what it describes as unlawful pressure by prosecutors on the doctor.
The starting point for the association’s analysis was a statement made by the Prime Minister. Donald Tusk publicly said that the credibility of the whistleblower doctor from Warsaw’s Southern Hospital “appears to be questionable.” The Prime Minister made the remark even though procedural actions involving the doctor and his legal representative had only been scheduled for Monday. During today’s questioning, Dr. Jędrzejewski merely handed investigators a brief written statement and refused to answer questions due to the absence of his attorney.
Lawyers have come to his defense. Lawyers for Poland emphasized the importance of medical confidentiality.
“Emil Jędrzejewski is bound by medical confidentiality. Only a court can release a physician from that obligation,” they stated at the outset of their post.
The association advanced the argument that:
“The attempt by Waldemar Żurek’s subordinates to question Emil Jędrzejewski without first obtaining a court decision releasing the witness from medical confidentiality was deliberate. The aim was allegedly to obtain testimony and then charge Emil Jędrzejewski with unlawfully disclosing confidential professional information under Article 266 of the Criminal Code.”
According to Lawyers for Poland, any criminal charge brought by prosecutors would allow Dr. Jędrzejewski to be presented to the public as an unreliable individual and a criminal suspect.
The association also reminded the public that:
“A court decision releasing a physician from medical confidentiality is subject to appeal, including by the person released from that obligation.”
It then directly appealed to Żurek:
“Please produce the court order releasing Emil Jędrzejewski from medical confidentiality.”
The lawyers warned that the case could have broader implications:
“At this very moment, the future of medical confidentiality affecting every one of you is at stake. The question is whether political authorities, through a prosecution service subordinate to them and without judicial oversight, should have access to your intimate medical information. Such information is a treasure trove of knowledge that can be manipulated and used in attempts to discredit any of you.”
Finally, the association addressed the medical community directly:
“Where is the solidarity of doctors with a fellow physician? Where are the protests from the Supreme Medical Chamber?”