A Tenerife judge guarantees that a mother does not vaccinate her child because there are “more risks than benefits”

The head of the Court of Instruction 2 of Icod de los Vinos (Tenerife) has endorsed the decision of a mother not to vaccinate her 15-year-old son against COVID-19, against the will of the minor and the father, whose divorced the mother, because she argues that there is “more risk than benefits”.

A union of teaching professionals opposes the vaccination of students aged 5 to 11 in schools

A union of teaching professionals opposes the vaccination of students aged 5 to 11 in schools

Know more

Among other arguments, the judge indicates that the administration of a vaccine “must be preceded by weighing the risks/benefits”, and in this case “the possible benefit” that the minor could obtain “is very scarce”, while the possible adverse effects are “far superior”.

In an order dated December 10, 2021, to which Efe has had access, the judge dismisses the father’s claim that the boy be judicially authorized to be vaccinated and gives the mother the power to decide on the matter during a two year period.

He does so after listening to both parties and also to the minor, who told him that he wants to be vaccinated, claiming that if it is given “it is because it is reliable” and because he considers that the unvaccinated “have a worse time” when contracting the virus.

Meanwhile, the judge indicates in the car, the father stated that “it is the best” for his son, because he considers that the covid vaccine “is good and will protect him.”

On the other hand, he maintains that the mother’s arguments “are based on the principle of prudence”, since “the effects of the vaccine in the medium and long term are unknown, since the clinical trials have not finished”.

The magistrate supports the argumentation of her order in the documentation provided by the mother: a study by the Carlos III University on mortality and ICU admissions of children under 19 years of age in Spain and of a doctor in Chemical Sciences to which she gives value of expert opinion.

From both, he concludes that the percentages of risk at these ages are “insignificant”.

He appreciates that the parent took the trouble to look for “different information” to that offered by “the conventional media” or to the recommendations disclosed by official channels, which “not because they come from public organizations must necessarily be the right ones.”

He gives as an example that “at the beginning of the pandemic, the health authorities discouraged the use of a mask, which is now mandatory in closed spaces.”

The magistrate notes that the father admitted during the hearing process the possibility that the vaccine could cause “long-term adverse effects”, but indicated that weighing all the risks, he gave greater importance to “protecting himself and protecting” others.

At this point, he states that “it is difficult, if not impossible, to weigh the medium or long-term adverse effects of the covid vaccine, when they are unknown at the present time.”

So “what is being put on one side of the scale is a question mark, an unknown, for which no one can offer an accurate answer to date, since no one has been vaccinated against covid for several years.”

The judge refers to the “abundant jurisprudence” about convictions of pharmaceutical companies and public administrations “for the adverse effects of vaccines or medications that have appeared some time after their intake or inoculation or that years later their causal relationship with the drug has been determined ingested years ago.

He cites as an example the case of a patient from Castilla y León due to the consequences of the smallpox vaccine in the seventies of the last century or the well-known case of thalidomide.

The magistrate insists that “the risks and adverse effects of the covid vaccine, like those of any medication, drug or vaccine, may appear many years after its intake or inoculation.”

And he stresses that even without knowing what will happen in the medium or long term, as stated in the documentation provided by the parent, “serious short-term adverse effects have already been documented, such as myocarditis and pericarditis.”

Which “suggests, at the very least, extreme caution when inoculating children with the vaccine.”

Regarding the state of development of vaccines or drugs against covid, he emphasizes that today “none of them has a vaccine authorization that has completed its clinical trials.”

As for the reasons of solidarity invoked for the minor to be vaccinated, the magistrate maintains that since the covid “barely has an incidence” at those ages, “the pretext” that they protect their grandparents in this way “would be ethically doubtful, especially when there are mechanisms that have been shown to be effective in preventing the spread of the virus, such as masks or other precautions.”

Additionally, it indicates that “none of the vaccines currently supplied in Spain immunizes against the virus, none prevents contagion or prevents transmission, so that it is difficult for the unvaccinated to benefit from an immunity that is not given by the fact that others get vaccinated.

The judge also stresses that there is no informed consent prior to the inoculation of the covid-19 vaccine, in which possible risks and expected benefits are reported.

As it is a massive vaccination campaign, the order points out, the right to information is contained in the campaign itself and in the promotion that public administrations make of it.

Under these premises, “it is the users who make the decision to get vaccinated or not and assume the risks inherent in it.”

Source link

Related Posts