Open letter: Many health professionals join the citizen collective which fights against wearing masks in primary school


More than 40 health professionals (doctors, dentists, nurses, physiotherapists, psychologists…) and therapists have co-signed an open letter to support the citizen collective which is against the wearing of the mask imposed on primary school children.

With this letter, as health professionals and therapists, we bring our full support to the citizen collective “No to wearing a compulsory mask in primary school”.

Indeed, our vocation is to promote the best possible health to the population by providing them with the information and tools at our disposal allowing them to constitute a free and informed consent. We are therefore for freedom of choice.

However, this restrictive measure was imposed and the information provided to justify it is limited to the transmission of SARS COV 2, omitting the risks that they can generate in other areas.

We recall that health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and is not just an absence of disease (WHO).

Thus, in order to weigh the benefit / risk balance properly, it seems essential to us that all the information be given.

It seems clear to us that the cost of this benefit / risk balance is questionable to say the least. Indeed, the wearing of the mask imposed on children aged 6 to 11 years can present adverse health risks which must be taken into account.

Serious scientific studies show that the prolonged wearing of masks in children can induce deleterious effects on their physical and mental health: headaches, fatigue and drowsiness, feeling of suffocation, malaise, discomfort, difficulty concentrating, disturbances of learning, irritability, sadness, reluctance to attend school, sleep disorders, anxiety ...

We are warning about the unknown psychosocial effects of long-term mask wear, because when these are known, it may be too late.

We remind you that children belonging to this age group are very little contaminated and very few vectors of SARS COV 2 contamination.

It therefore appears to us that we are entitled to ask ourselves the question of the merits of this measure, as well as the consistency of imposing it 1 year after the start of the epidemic.

The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration. We therefore wish to return the responsibility to parents so that they can judge what seems to them good or not for the health of their children. We therefore call on the authorities to reassess their position in order to leave the parents free to choose.

We remind you that one of the first principles to be respected in medicine is “Primum non nocere”: first, do no harm.


About author

No comments