This time it was Piratepartei MP Sven Clement who expressed doubts about the hospital group’s justification for vaccinating three of its board members. As a reminder, last week, Radio 100,7 questioned the need to have vaccinated Jean-Louis Schiltz, chairman of the board of directors and former CSV minister, as well as vice-presidents Michel Wurth and Claude Seywert on 15 January.

The HRS group denies any privileges, explaining that the hospital had identified 3,200 people to vaccinate in order to ensure the continuity of the activities of the structures. According to the HRS, the three board members in question are regularly in the hospitals as part of their duties, which is why they had been among the 3,200 people on the vaccination list. 

However, the other hospitals in the country did not act in the same way and did not vaccinate members of their boards of directors.

"There is a huge governance and control problem of the vaccination strategy. I think the ministry has given hospitals too much freedom, so that they’ve been able to do what they want. Listening to prime minister Xavier Bettel (DP) in the chamber of deputies last week, we learned that hospitals still have 1,600 doses. Reserves that have not yet been used. I am therefore wondering about the effectiveness of leaving hospitals free choice on the matter. Even more so when I hear that a hospital has vaccinated its board members with very, very weak arguments, which I really have a hard time accepting," Clement said.

Health minister Paulette Lenert (LSAP) responded saying for her the case was closed. "In the ministry’s agreement with hospitals, the categories of individuals to be vaccinated as a priority in hospitals are defined as follows: employees of hospitals, regardless of their status, any healthcare professional who is contractually linked to hospitals, the staff of subcontractors working in hospitals and professionals undergoing training," the health ministry pointed out adding "the HRS board interpreted it differently. This is a very small number of people which does not affect the vaccination campaign."

"I can understand the minister’s point of view. She has to organise the vaccination of more than 600,000 people. And now she’s being asked to take care of six doses that I believe were fraudulently used by HRS board members. Moreover, she has no way of punishing them. So I understand that it is not up to the minister to take care of three people on a hospital board. It is more of a personal responsibility to do that, at least morally," Clement says.

It is difficult to clearly say whether or not a fault was committed knowingly or whether the texts had a "grey" area, through differences in interpretation. Asked about the issue by Delano’s sister publication Paperjam, the national ethics commission (CNE) did not want to position itself.

"Anyone with a heart questions the ethics of the case. And for me, the answer is clear. What happened may be legal, but it is morally unacceptable. You can’t vaccinate people who can telework while a housekeeper who is cleaning the surfaces in the hospital is not inoculated, because she’s not in touch with the patients," Sven Clement said.

"I think it was the hospital group’s director, Dr Claude Schummer, who put these three people on the list wanting to be on their good side. With regards to their roles and their relative importance, the concerned see themselves as very important people for the system. This is what I call the arrogance of power," concludes Sven Clement.

Contacted by Paperjam, Jean-Louis Schiltz did not want to comment on the situation. Michel Wurth also refused to speak on the matter which he considered "ridiculous".

This article was originally published in French on paperjam.lu and has been translated and edited for Delano