"Lex Szarlatan" (UD207): Is a Total Ban on Unconventional Medicine the Best Way to Protect Patients?
Bill UD207 (“lex szarlatan”) is intended to protect patients from the risks of unconventional medicine. Rather than precise regulation, it proposes what amounts to near-total prohibition. Will this genuinely improve safety – or will it simply push practices underground?
What are the main concerns about Bill UD207?
- Overly broad definition of “therapeutic activity”: The absence of a precise distinction between medicine, wellness and everyday health-promoting practices means that legal and socially accepted activities – such as dietary consultations, supplementation recommended by a personal trainer, breathing exercises or meditation – could fall within the scope of criminal liability.
- Risk of conflict with superior law: The proposed provisions may conflict with both the Polish Constitution (freedom of economic activity, freedom of expression) and EU law on the freedom to provide services, as well as the regulation of borderline products (food supplements, herbal products, medical devices).
- Disregard for the experience of other countries: Switzerland, Germany and the United Kingdom have not chosen the model of “banning everything that falls outside conventional academic medicine”. Instead, they have introduced systems of registration, certification and patient information, seeking to balance safety with individual autonomy.
Prohibition or regulation? Two different legal philosophies
International experience shows that law can respond to large-scale social phenomena – such as unconventional medicine – in two ways: by prohibiting and criminalising everything that does not fit within a narrow definition of “the standard of care”, or by introducing graduated regulation that differentiates according to the level of risk involved.
Bill UD207 leans towards the first model. Yet a total ban does not eliminate the phenomenon – it merely changes its geography: from a regulated space it moves into the internet, the underground and private homes, where patients have less information, less protection and less evidence available should a dispute arise.
What might a sensible alternative look like?
A more considered system of regulation, built on three pillars, would be preferable to radical criminalisation:
- Risk-differentiated treatment of methods: High-risk practices should be subject to licensing and, in extreme cases, outright prohibition. Conversely, relaxation techniques, meditation and mild nutritional support could operate under simplified rules, with a clear prohibition on making therapeutic claims.
- Strong information law rather than censorship: The key is precise regulation of what may be communicated to a patient, and how. Rather than prohibiting references to “support” or “comfort”, the legislator should focus on banning any suggestion that a practice replaces medical treatment or creates false expectations of cure.
- An assessment and verification pathway: The act should provide a mechanism by which widely used methods can be subjected to systematic evaluation, so as to distinguish genuinely dangerous practices from those that demonstrably improve patient wellbeing.
“Lex szarlatan” in its current form – a dead end
In its present form, Bill UD207 resembles an emotional reaction to market abuses more 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,
- increase interpretive uncertainty for law enforcement authorities and courts, and
- potentially infringe the principles of proportionality and necessity that govern state interference with individual freedoms.
Frequently asked questions about “lex szarlatan” (UD207)
- What is Bill UD207 ("lex szarlatan")?
- It is a draft act introducing criminal liability for providing services of a medical nature by persons without medical qualifications. Critics point to overly broad definitions that could capture even dietitians, personal trainers or yoga instructors.
- Is "lex szarlatan" compatible with the Constitution and EU law?
- It raises serious doubts. It may infringe freedom of economic activity (Articles 20 and 22 of the Polish Constitution), the freedom to provide services (TFEU), and the right to information about herbal products and food supplements.
- How do other countries regulate unconventional medicine?
- Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom use models based on regulation and licensing rather than prohibition. This allows them to control quality without pushing patients into the grey market.
- Would a total ban actually improve patient safety?
- Paradoxically, it may reduce it. Prohibition drives practices underground, beyond any state oversight. A better approach is risk-differentiated regulation combined with reliable consumer information.
Do you run a naturopathy, dietetics or wellness practice?
Do not wait for the act to come into force. Now is the time to review your business model and communications for compliance with both current law and the proposed legislation.
I help practitioners secure their operations to the fullest extent possible – without compromising their mission.