Spread of Covid, will vaccines stop it, will you get vaccines forever?

[Scott777]

You didn't know that before you had it though.

I did know that before I had it the second time, and definitely now.

[Nick]

I had Covid once, and probably again a month ago.  I am confident I have good natural immunity.

You didn't know that before you had it though.

[papasmurf]

That's not what would be judged.  It's about the child being able to decide to get jabbed, not the judge deciding.

If a child decides to get jabbed against their parents wishes a court is their only course of action.

[Scott777]

Hopefully the Judge will have the sense to protect the child in the best way as yet possible.

That's not what would be judged.  It's about the child being able to decide to get jabbed, not the judge deciding.

[papasmurf]

If it has got as far as the Court then that is the risk.

I would call it a result, not a risk. 

[T00ts]

Which could mean over-riding anti-vaxxer parents.

If it has got as far as the Court then that is the risk.

[papasmurf]

Hopefully the Judge will have the sense to protect the child in the best way as yet possible.

Which could mean over-riding anti-vaxxer parents.

[T00ts]

I agree, a judge COULD judge in favour, but in this case, he would look at whether a child could possibly understand the risks and benefits of an experimental mRNA gene therapy.  No one can do that, because the risks are not yet fully assessed.  Also, the benefits are negligible for 99% of kids, so those kids who think there is a benefit of getting the jab must have false info on the benefits, and therefore could not make an informed or competent decision.  Even for the 1% who are at risk from Covid, a decision would involve the child understanding other treatments.

Hopefully the Judge will have the sense to protect the child in the best way as yet possible.

[papasmurf]

I agree, a judge COULD judge in favour, but in this case, he would look at whether a child could possibly understand the risks and benefits of an experimental mRNA gene therapy.  No one can do that, because the risks are not yet fully assessed.  Also, the benefits are negligible for 99% of kids, so those kids who think there is a benefit of getting the jab must have false info on the benefits, and therefore could not make an informed or competent decision.  Even for the 1% who are at risk from Covid, a decision would involve the child understanding other treatments.

Fortunately for us all you are not a judge. 

[Scott777]

Competence linked to Victoria Gillick is an Oxymoron.
In general terms if a case involving a decision involving the welfare of a child ends up  up in court, (usually a divorce but it can also be medical treatment that there is some conflict about on religious beliefs,) a judge can (after getting expert opinion on the competence of a child to make a decision,) make a judgement in favour of the child making a decision.

I agree, a judge COULD judge in favour, but in this case, he would look at whether a child could possibly understand the risks and benefits of an experimental mRNA gene therapy.  No one can do that, because the risks are not yet fully assessed.  Also, the benefits are negligible for 99% of kids, so those kids who think there is a benefit of getting the jab must have false info on the benefits, and therefore could not make an informed or competent decision.  Even for the 1% who are at risk from Covid, a decision would involve the child understanding other treatments.

[papasmurf]

Gillick Competence therefore could not apply.

Competence linked to Victoria Gillick is an Oxymoron.
In general terms if a case involving a decision involving the welfare of a child ends up  up in court, (usually a divorce but it can also be medical treatment that there is some conflict about on religious beliefs,) a judge can (after getting expert opinion on the competence of a child to make a decision,) make a judgement in favour of the child making a decision. 

[Scott777]

That's as maybe John but if you are able to determine that murdering someone is wrong then I'm  damn sure you're able to determine  if you want a vaccine.

And I'm afraid you're wrong on under 16 John,if they are deemed competent then they can decide for themselves and if they ask it be private then parents are not informed.

https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/0-18-years/making-decisions

To be precise, a child could give informed consent under certain circumstances (Gillick Competence), however, those circumstances require that the information is provided accurately, and can be understood.  When a medical procedure is experimental (officially), it means the consequences are not fully known by the scientists, let alone by the child.  Gillick Competence therefore could not apply.

[papasmurf]

 "Gillick Competence") 

Victoria Gillick, now that was a woman who did make me angry.

[johnofgwent]

John I'm not saying all aged ten are capable, some obviously are but the medics do the assessment.

Tbf John there are people of ages 18 onwards who I wouldn't expect to decide the difference between night and day........and they don't have a learning disability.

Aha!!!

Nothing personal, but having looked it up (Wikipedia, "Gillick Competence") it's actually the judges that run the court my missus NOW works for at the MOJ, the Family Court, who have the final say.

The exact circumstances are laid down in that wiki article but while there is a specific court / tribunal assigned to decide issues of ADULT failure to make the "right" decision, cases where a child fights the medics actually goes to the family court.

Moira says they get one or two a year, usually when the parents are divorced....

But on the other side of the cockfight, we have Scarman to thank for the utterly useless but devastating decision that a minor who is deemed +by the court) to be capable of understanding the medical issues, treatments and side effects must be given legal precedence over their parents. Unless the doctors disagree in which case that's when Moira has to work overtime preparing the paperwork ...

[papasmurf]

Tbf John there are people of ages 18 onwards who I wouldn't expect to decide the difference between night and day.

Plenty of those on internet forums.