[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> than federal level but children generally tend to be viewed as akin to   
   >> property that can be disposed of according to parental wishes. In the   
   >> UK, parents are regarded as trustees, who are obliged to act in the best   
   >> interests of their children, and may be overruled if they fail to do so.   
   >> One consequence is that a child’s consent to vaccination cannot be   
   >> assumed from parental consent. Vaccines are also being offered to   
   >> children in France but the legal position in civil law countries would   
   >> require further research. Germany is only offering vaccines to children   
   >> with a narrow range of disabilities contributing to vulnerability, much   
   >> as JCVI has previously recommended.   
   >> Ethical Issues: There is a substantial literature within bioethics about   
   >> vaccination in general and about children and medical interventions.   
   >> Vaccination for children against SARS-COV-2 raises novel issues for the   
   >> application of these principles, which should be specifically tested.   
   >> These include, but are not restricted to:-   
   >> Consent: It is generally considered desirable for children to give their   
   >> own full and informed consent to medical interventions, where they have   
   >> the capacity to do so. This is also settled English law following   
   >> Gillick. Children’s consent should only be over-ridden where they   
   >> clearly lack capacity, as in some cases where the courts have authorised   
   >> non-consensual treatment of older teenagers with mental health problems.   
   >> Equally, both parental and child consent can be over-ridden where it is   
   >> considered that neither understand the full implications of the medical   
   >> intervention, as in the recent case on puberty blockers. The latter case   
   >> may be particularly relevant, given the essentially irreversible nature   
   >> of the intervention and the allied risks. Any proposed policy should be   
   >> assessed for its ability to elicit independent and informed consent,   
   >> with consideration for the opportunities for children to receive   
   >> explanations and information sheets appropriate to their age and   
   >> understanding and clearly describing the balance of risks and benefits   
   >> to them as individuals. Those administering the vaccination have a   
   >> particular responsibility to ensure that the child has not been coerced,   
   >> either directly or indirectly. Consent cannot be assumed simply from   
   >> self-presentation for vaccination.   
   >> Altruism: Should children and young people be expected or required to be   
   >> vaccinated for the wider benefit of society in a pandemic? Can children   
   >> be compelled to act for the benefit of others? If so, which others?   
   >> There has been a debate about the ethics of parents having a second   
   >> child in order to harvest stem cells to treat a first child born with   
   >> Fanconi’s Anaemia. The conclusion was that this was unacceptable because   
   >> it reduced the second child to an object for donation rather than a   
   >> human with their own right to bodily integrity. There have been similar   
   >> debates about children participating in live organ donation to parents   
   >> or siblings. Is there a parallel with a child being required to accept   
   >> the uncertain and potentially irreversible personal risk/benefit of   
   >> vaccination for the benefit of a specific adult, or another child in the   
   >> same household? Does this principle extend to adults in general? What   
   >> does this mean for the principle of autonomy? Although the parallels are   
   >> not exact, they suggest there are issues about ‘forced altruism’ to be   
   >> considered if it is argued that the vaccination of children is for an   
   >> assumed benefit to others, whether to society as a whole or to specific   
   >> households. Other UK child vaccination programmes such as LAIV needed to   
   >> demonstrate benefit to individual children as well as older adults   
   >> before JCVI approval.   
   >> Global Equity: The argument has been made that it is unethical to   
   >> vaccinate low-risk children in affluent countries before higher-risk   
   >> adults in low and middle-income countries. This raises issues about the   
   >> boundaries of a supposed moral community and the nature of obligations   
   >> to others. Whilst it is recognised that the remit of JCVI and MEAG does   
   >> not extend outside the UK, reputational damage could be incurred if this   
   >> issue is not explicitly addressed in a timely and appropriate manner.   
   >> 13.6.21   
   >> Read in full   
   >> Source: Department of Health & Social Care memo   
   >> It had been circulated among the Government’s vaccine taskforce, the   
   >> Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) and MEAG before   
   >> the decision to press ahead with a jab rollout to children.   
   >> But the document, written by members of a JCVI sub-committee, was   
   >> “suppressed”, according to a whistleblower, who said: “We were just   
   told   
   >> not to circulate it. Word came down to a committee chair to ‘stop   
   this’.”   
   >> In summer 2021, there were intense discussions within Whitehall about   
   >> whether to extend the vaccine rollout to healthy children. In September,   
   >> the JCVI refused to give the green light to vaccinating 12 to 15-year-olds.   
   >> But days later, Sir Chris, along with his counterparts in Wales,   
   >> Scotland and Northern Ireland, effectively overrode this advice and   
   >> recommended that children be vaccinated, arguing that it would prevent   
   >> disruption to their education.   
   >> MEAG was convened again in September 2021, just days before Sir Chris   
   >> made the recommendation. But members were asked to advise on the   
   >> phenomenon of virginity testing for women and girls, a topic completely   
   >> unrelated to the pandemic.   
   >> In October – at the peak of the debate over vaccine passports – MEAG was   
   >> asked to advise on the non-urgent issue of statutory storage limits for   
   >> eggs, sperm and embryos.   
   >> ‘We had been sidelined’   
   >> MEAG met for a final time in mid-December 2021, around the time of a   
   >> public debate about whether the vaccine should be rolled out to   
   >> five-year-olds. But instead of being asked about this issue, it was told   
   >> to advise on the use of AI in medical testing.   
   >> During the early months of 2022, meeting dates had been pencilled in but   
   >> were cancelled when Department of Health officials failed to offer any   
   >> topics for discussion.   
   >> Despite still having a year left in its term, the group was not called   
   >> again and was effectively wound down early, before being formally stood   
   >> down in October 2022 following a review conducted by Sir Chris and   
   >> another Department of Health official.   
   >> “We had been sidelined. That was the end of it,” recalled one former   
   >> member recalled. “If we are being sidelined, then being silenced comes   
   >> with it.”   
   >> The issues in the MEAG meeting minutes were first uncovered by Molly and   
   >> Ben Kingsley of the campaign group UsForThem, who wrote about the group   
   >> in their book The Accountability Deficit.   
   >> UsForThem instructed lawyers to write to the Covid inquiry on two   
   >> occasions – once in December 2023 and again in February last year – to   
   >> urge it to examine the role of the group.   
   >> Ms Kingsley said it was a “glaring omission” that the Covid inquiry’s   
   >> latest report failed to mention the role of MEAG.   
   >> “It is astonishing that the Covid inquiry, with its battalions of   
   >> lawyers and at a projected cost to the taxpayer of over £200m, has   
   >> failed to examine what appears to have been the deliberate silencing,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)