Lex Charlatan (UD207): Is a Total Ban on Unconventional Medicine the Best Patient Protection?
The UD207 bill ("lex charlatan") aims to protect patients from the dangers of unconventional medicine. Instead of precise regulation, it proposes near-total prohibition. Will this actually increase safety, or will it push practices underground?
What raises the biggest concerns about the UD207 bill?
- Overly broad definition of "medical activity": The lack of a precise distinction between medicine, wellness, and everyday health-promoting practices means that lawful and socially accepted activities could be at risk of criminalisation, including dietary consultations, supplementation recommended by a trainer, breathing exercises, or meditation.
- Risk of conflict with higher-ranking law: The proposed provisions may conflict with both the Polish Constitution (freedom of economic activity under art. 20 and 22 of Konstytucji RP, freedom of expression) and with EU law regarding freedom to provide services and the regulation of borderline products (food supplements, herbal products, medical devices).
- Ignoring the experience of other countries: Switzerland, Germany, and the United Kingdom did not choose the model of "banning everything that is not classical academic medicine". Instead, they introduced systems of registration, certification, and patient information, attempting to balance safety with individual autonomy.
Prohibition or regulation? Two different legal philosophies
International experience shows that for phenomena of large social scale (such as unconventional medicine), the law can respond in two ways: through a ban and criminalisation of everything that does not fit a narrow definition of "standard", or through gradual regulation that differentiates levels of risk.
The UD207 bill leans towards the first model. However, a total ban does not eliminate the phenomenon; it merely changes its geography: from a regulated space it moves to the internet, the underground, and private homes, where the patient has less information, less protection, and less evidence in the event of a dispute.
What could a sensible alternative look like?
A better path than radical criminalisation would be a well-designed regulatory system built on three pillars:
- Risk-based differentiation of methods: High-risk practices should be subject to licensing and, in extreme cases, bans. On the other hand, relaxation techniques, meditation, or gentle nutritional support could function under simplified rules, with a clear prohibition on making therapeutic promises.
- Strong information law instead of censorship: The key is to precisely regulate what and how can be communicated to the patient. Rather than banning the use of words like "support" or "comfort", the legislator should focus on prohibiting suggestions that medical therapy can be replaced and preventing the creation of false expectations.
- Assessment and verification pathway: The legislation should provide a mechanism whereby highly popular methods can be subjected to systematic evaluation, so as to distinguish dangerous practices from those that genuinely improve patient well-being.
"Lex charlatan" in its current form - a dead end
The UD207 bill in its current form resembles an emotional reaction to market pathologies rather than a tool of responsible health policy. Criminalising broadly defined alternative practices without clear risk differentiation:
- will make it harder to prosecute genuinely dangerous fraud,
- will increase interpretive chaos on the part of law enforcement and courts,
- may violate the principles of proportionality and necessity of state interference with citizens' freedom.
Frequently Asked Questions about "Lex Charlatan" (UD207)
- What is the UD207 bill ('lex charlatan')?
- It is a legislative proposal introducing criminal liability for providing medical-type services by persons without medical qualifications. Critics point out that its definitions are overly broad and could potentially encompass dietitians, personal trainers, and even yoga instructors.
- Is 'lex charlatan' compatible with the Constitution and EU law?
- It raises serious concerns. It may violate freedom of economic activity (art. 20 and 22 of the Polish Constitution), freedom to provide services (TFEU), and the right to information about herbal products and supplements.
- How do other countries regulate unconventional medicine?
- Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom use regulation and licensing models instead of prohibition. This allows them to control quality while not pushing patients into the grey market.
- Will a total ban increase patient safety?
- Paradoxically, it may decrease it. Prohibition drives practices underground, beyond any state oversight. A better approach is regulation based on risk differentiation and reliable information.
Do you run a naturopathy, dietetics, or wellness practice?
Do not wait for the law to come into force. It is worth verifying your business model and communications for legal compliance today - both with existing and proposed legislation.
I help maximise the legal security of your business - without giving up your mission.