The legislator extended the substantive scope of the definition of the profession of midwife, using a simple legislative technique, i.e. cop-ied the content of Article 4, Section 1 from point 1 to point 6 of the Act on the professions of nurse and midwife that contain the defini-tion of the profession of nurse to the newly created Article 5 Section 1a of the Act. The literal meaning of this provision suggests that a person having the right to practice the profession of midwife in the event of an epidemic threat or state of an epidemic may perform activities appropriate for the profession of a nurse, although they are still to have the professional title of “midwife”. If this was the legis-lator’s intended goal, it is absolutely erroneous and inconsistent with the historical, systemic, purposeful, and functional interpretation, but also with the jurisprudence and legal doctrine, and would prove the legislator’s irrationality. The law obliges employers and principals to employ medical professionals in accordance with their professional qualifications and health. Moreover, the employment of midwives in positions not corresponding to their professional qualifications and skills exposes medical entities to suffer legal liability in the future. Provision of specific health services without having the required license to practice is punishable by a fine, and if the person does so in order to gain financial benefits or is misleading as to having such a right, they are subject to a fine, restriction of liberty, or imprisonment of up to a year.