Tenerife Child Vaccination Case
Re: the decision of which parent has precedence in administering or withholding a new medical prophylactic treatment to their child
Facts of the Case
- Dates: Dec 1, 2021
- Location: Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
- Court: Court of First Instance
- Case #: 0000482/2021
- Plaintiff: Mother of child
- Defendant: Father of child
- Trial Type: Family Law Resolution
- Judge: ??
- Expert: Sergio Pérez Olivero- PhD Chemical Sciences
- Status: Ruled Dec 10 2021
- Verdict: For the Plaintiff
This case involves adjudication of a dispute between a mother and father living on the island of Tenerife, Spain. The father wished for the vaccination of his 15-year-old son with the Covid-19 vaccine because he simply trusted that it would be good for his child. The mother, on the other hand, had done independent research into the vaccine and considered that the potential risks of vaccination to the child’s present & possible future health outweighed any potential benefits. (1 & 2)
This case was initiated by the father, who on 13th September 2021 submitted a written request for a legal judgement in a family dispute. He indicated that the mother of his minor child did not agree that the son should be inoculated with the Covid-19 vaccine. He did not share this view and considered it harmful to his child’s health. No medical report or any document in support of his request was attached to the application, only a fax document sent by the mother explaining the reasons why she objected to her son receiving the vaccine, the birth certificate of the son and the divorce decree. (1& 2)
The application was admitted to court on 2nd November 2021, a statement was taken from the minor on 30th November 2021. The case was heard on 1st December 2021.
This appears to be the first case in a European court of justice where a successful challenge has been made against a broad based mainstream / political imperative to vaccinate children in the absence of a detailed scientific / epidemiological rational that has broad acceptance among experts. In fact the whole policy of vaccination of children is a highly contested area.
The mother’s arguments against giving her son the covid vaccine were based upon the principle of prudence because the effects of the vaccine in the medium and long term are unknown, as the clinical trials have not been completed.
One of the documents provided by the mother was an independent scientist’s report provided by Mr. Sergio Pérez Olivero, PhD Chemical Sciences. The judge considered this fulfilled legal requirements to be viewed as expert opinion, without it being necessary for the expert to appear at the hearing, and without prejudice to the fact that even if it were not considered an expert report, its probative value as documentary evidence may be deployed. (1)
The father’s arguments for giving the vaccine to his son were based on his understanding that this would be the best thing for his son. He considers that the Covid vaccine is good and will protect the son.
Relevant Prior Judgements & Considerations
- Judgment 377/2003 handed down by the 2nd Section of the 2nd Chamber of the Castile and León High Court of Justice on 7 October 2003 (and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court), upheld a claim for financial liability for injuries suffered by a man (born in 1971) as a result of compulsory vaccination against smallpox in 1975, which caused him to suffer from post-vaccination encephalitis when he was four years old, which has degenerated over time, giving rise to the ailments he suffers today, which have meant that he is unable to work in the profession for which he was training as a Tourism Technician.
- It is also worth highlighting the well-known case of thalidomide, a drug that was given to pregnant women in Spain in the 1960s, under the belief that it was good for them, and which more than fifty years later, given the malformations of children whose mothers ingested the drug during pregnancy, led to the publication of Royal Decree 1006/2010, of 5 August, which regulates the procedure for granting aid to people affected by thalidomide in Spain during the period 1960-1965. (Judgment no. 426/2014 of the High Court of Justice of Madrid, Litigation Section 10, handed down on 6 June 2014).
- The judge dismissed the application made by the father and conferred the power to decide on the inoculation of the child to the mother. The power is conferred for a period of 2 years from the decision date (the maximum period available).
Some key excerpts from the judges statement / summation (English translation) of the case: (2)
The present controversy between two parents must be resolved in accordance with the evidence and what has been accredited in this case, leaving aside the opinions or personal considerations that each one may have regarding the controversial issue of the Covid vaccine. And in this sense, we must emphasize that the [mother] parent provided, prior to the hearing, abundant medical and scientific documentation on the vaccine, which has been passed on to the other parties, and that the father [parent] and the Public Prosecutor’s Office have not provided or proposed any evidence, except for the interrogation of both parents.
And so, let us now focus on what is at issue in this dossier, which is the vaccination of a specific 15-year-old child.
First of all, as it is a minor we are dealing with here, we are going to look at the incidence of Covid in minors. In this regard, the latest report of the Carlos III Institute (an autonomous public body attached to the Ministry of Economy and directed by the Ministry of Science and Innovation), which reveals that from 22 June 2020 to 9 June 2021, 22 children under 19 years of age have died in Spain as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 229 have been admitted to the Intensive Care Unit for this age group, has been brought to the proceedings by the parent. Thus, it can be concluded from this report that the mortality rate due to COVID-19 in Spain in children under 19 years of age in the year analysed was 0.00023861% and the rate of hospitalisation in the ICU in the same period was 0.002484%.
Therefore, what we intend to highlight by pointing out this case law is that the risks and adverse effects of the Covid vaccine, like those of any medicine, drug or vaccine, can appear many years after its ingestion or inoculation and that the fact that they appear late does not mean that they will be mild effects or sequelae, as there is nothing to prevent them from being serious ailments. In addition, and although We do not know what will happen in the medium or long term, according to the documentation provided by the mother, serious adverse effects have already been documented in the short term, such as myocarditis and pericarditis, which suggests, at the very least, extreme caution in the inoculation of children with the vaccine.
Another of the points that have been dealt with in the present case is that of informed consent, which the mother claims is non-existent. In fact, the administration of a drug must be preceded by a weighing up of possible risks and expected benefits, and this weighing up must be carried out by the doctor (to determine the “prescription or therapeutic indication”), by the health administration itself and, of course, by the user of the health services (in this case, the parents of the minor). In the case at hand, such weighing is not carried out by any medical practitioner, given that there is no requirement that the Covid vaccine be prescribed or prescribed or issued as a referral or similar by any medical practitioner.
The judge has noted that the ruling may be appealed against.
In the news:
…More information is needed…
(The authenticity of this copy can be checked at https://sede.justiciaencanarias.es/sede/tramites-comprobacion-documentos , using the following electronic document number: A05003250- 3856938a0cb315530cdb3d37bbd1639135515269)
Child, Parents, Spain, Tenerife, Vaccination, Vaccine, Vaccines, risk-benefit analysis, adverse reactions, child vaccination, precautionary principle, long-term effects, family dispute