According to the violinist, the regulation of compulsory medical care was unconstitutional, according to Peter Takács, this is not the case

The recent controversy surrounding mandatory medical duty regulations in Hungary has sparked intense debate among political figures and healthcare professionals. According to a statement made by Zsolt Hegedűs, the current Minister of Health, the regulation requiring general practitioners to participate in the primary care on-call system was deemed unconstitutional. This assertion comes amid ongoing discussions about the governance of the healthcare sector under the ruling Fidesz-KDNP government. However, this claim has been contested by Péter Takács, a former state secretary for health, who argues that there is no such constitutional violation.

Hegedűs emphasized that the regulation created unpredictable and legally uncertain conditions for Hungarian doctors. He pointed out that the government had launched a political attack against the Hungarian Medical Chamber (MOK) based on false accusations. The minister highlighted that the MOK's compulsory membership was revoked, its ethical code dismantled, and efforts were made to silence the professional advisory body. These actions, he claimed, were taken despite the MOK’s clear stance that the previous system could not have been implemented as it was.

According to Hegedűs, the Hungarian healthcare system cannot be managed through force, decrees, threats, or without professional consultation. He stated that the legal framework had already undergone review and that they were working with professional organizations, including the MOK, to ensure the on-call system is lawful, viable, and functional. He announced plans to return the issue to parliament, where they would amend the legislation to correct the violent, amateurish mistakes of the previous system.

In response to Hegedűs' claims, Takács expressed skepticism, suggesting that the minister might be misinterpreting the Constitutional Court's decision due to a lack of routine understanding or perhaps feeling some internal pressure to spread misinformation. He firmly denied that the court ruled the requirement for general practitioners to have on-call duties unconstitutional. Instead, he explained that the court's decision focused on specific sections of the law that were ambiguously worded, thus necessitating clarification rather than outright invalidation.

Takács clarified that the essence of the court's ruling was a technical correction rather than a fundamental constitutional challenge. He noted that these sections of the law had already been revised two years ago when the errors became apparent, making further action unnecessary. In a somewhat humorous aside, he mentioned that the codification was carried out by a respected expert who later became part of the Tisza government. He suggested that this individual should now step aside, implying that the current minister might benefit from similar reconsideration.

The dispute highlights the broader tensions within Hungary's healthcare policy landscape. It underscores the challenges faced by both the government and medical professionals in navigating complex regulatory frameworks while ensuring effective service delivery. As the situation unfolds, the upcoming parliamentary debates will likely play a crucial role in determining the future direction of healthcare management in Hungary. The outcome of these discussions could significantly influence how healthcare services are structured and regulated moving forward.