The European Union has implemented International Market Information System (IMI), related to the practice of a profession, available to professional organisations in all Member States. In Poland, information on punishing physicians is available to Medical Chambers and is monitored by them on an ongoing basis. The question arises whether the principle of re-examination by the Polish medical court, of the case of a Polish doctor who committed an act abroad and was punished there, should be adopted. And also whether to ensure the possibility of taking over the penalty imposed abroad by the competent body dealing with professional liability of physicians, for execution in Poland.
As of December 2023, Poland has reported 6,590,705 confirmed Covid-19 cases and 119,886 deaths. The pandemic unfolded in multiple waves, with significant spikes in infections and deaths occurring during the autumn of 2020 and winter of 2021, as well as subsequent surges linked to the Delta and Omicron variants. Poland’s healthcare system, while relatively well-developed, experienced periods of significant strain, particularly during the peaks of infection when hospital capacities were overwhelmed and shortages of medical staff and equipment were reported. The government’s public health response evolved over time, initially focusing on lockdowns and restrictions, later transitioning to mass vaccination campaigns, with varying degrees of compliance and public support. The Covid-19 pandemic occurred in Poland at a time when the country was already experiencing concerns related to the rule of law and trends in governance. In response to the pandemic, the Government opted not to declare a constitutional state of emergency (stan nadzwyczajny), but instead chose to manage the situation through existing legal frameworks, supplemented by new legislation. Observers have noted that the pandemic revealed significant challenges in state preparedness, with some laws reportedly being passed hastily and questions raised about the Government’s use of extraordinary powers. Critics have argued that certain rights and freedoms were restricted during the pandemic, at times exceeding the limits set by law, and that some policies, particularly those affecting women’s rights, led to significant societal debate. Furthermore, concerns have been raised regarding the lack of accountability for potential misuse of public funds, as well as the transparency and consistency of certain policies. Public opinion was also influenced by populist sentiments, including the anti-vaccination movement.
The CJEU judgment in SCHUFA (C-634/21) redefines the ‘decision’ of Article 22 GDPR: if a score generated by one entity effectively determines another entity’s decision, the data subject is entitled to the protections of Article 22, regardless of whether a human formally signs off. This article asks what that reasoning means for medicine: when an algorithm’s output shapes a physician’s clinical judgment, does the patient have a right to know, and what must they be told? The discussion confronts the SCHUFA doctrine with informed consent requirements under Polish law and the new Article 12 of the Code of Medical Ethics, situates it against the international debate, distinguishes diagnostic from cognitive uses of AI through operational criteria, examines liability for algorithmic harm after Directive (EU) 2024/2853, and addresses the problem of large language models – tools physicians already use but which cannot be meaningfully certified.
