[continued from previous message]   
      
   >government should be “realistic about alternatives” to the vaccine.   
   >Two weeks later, it was told its terms of reference were being   
   >“refreshed” to make clear that it should be a “constructive sounding   
   >board” for ministers. Rather than its earlier proactive approach, it   
   >should now focus on being “responsive”.   
   >Sir Chris meets Boris Johnson and his Covid top team at No 10 Downing   
   >Street during the pandemic   
   >Sir Chris meets Boris Johnson and his Covid top team at No 10 Downing   
   >Street during the pandemic   
   >In December 2020, MEAG members expressed grave misgivings about a   
   >proposed rollout of vaccine passports – a policy that would result in   
   >people being barred from pubs, cafes and restaurants if they failed to   
   >prove their vaccine status.   
   >There were “serious concerns” about human rights implications, with   
   >members questioning the motivation for introducing the passports. They   
   >raised concerns that the passports could be used by the Government and   
   >possibly employers to “semi-coerce people into having the vaccine”.   
   >Minutes from the next meeting, in January 2021, showed that Sir Chris   
   >advised the group to stop putting its recommendations in writing.   
   >While England’s chief medical officer “valued the presence of the MEAG   
   >and the ability to understand complexities” he “counselled against   
   >producing documentation that offered recommendations, given the   
   >political aspect of decision-making”.   
   >Prof Sir Jonathan Montgomery, the co-chairman of MEAG, submitted two   
   >witness statements to the Covid inquiry, both of which also referred to   
   >Sir Chris advising the group against putting its recommendations in writing.   
   >He recalled a meeting at which Sir Chris told him that “producing   
   >documentation that offered recommendations might not be helpful, given   
   >the political as well as ethical aspects of decision-making”.   
   >Sources close to Sir Chris said this was a misunderstanding and that he   
   >meant to explain that MEAG was an advisory group, meaning it was not   
   >appropriate for it to put recommendations in writing.   
   >'Serious concerns' were raised about the human rights implications of   
   >some Covid policies   
   >‘Serious concerns’ were raised about the human rights implications of   
   >some Covid policies Credit: Oli Scarff/AFP via Getty Images   
   >Some former MEAG members defended Sir Chris’s role, saying he was a   
   >civil servant acting on the orders of ministers.   
   >“He was acting as a conduit for those in government,” said one. “He was   
   >supportive of the work we were doing and could understand why it was   
   >important to have these discussions – but not the ministers.   
   >“He is not a political person, he is a civil servant. ‘Political’ is   
   >really a shorthand for saying ‘the government think you are a thorn in   
   >their side’.”   
   >Either way, this appeared to be something of a turning point for MEAG,   
   >after which the number of its meetings dwindled. There were no meetings   
   >recorded between April and September 2021, despite the fact that the   
   >children’s vaccine rollout was being debated and was regarded as one of   
   >the most ethically contentious decisions of the pandemic.   
   >The Telegraph has learnt that a meeting had been scheduled to take place   
   >on June16 2021 to discuss the matter. But the meeting was cancelled at   
   >the last minute by Department of Health officials – who cited   
   >“unexpected media coverage” – and was never rescheduled.   
   >Before it, a memo, seen by The Telegraph, had been circulated among   
   >members, warning of ethical and legal concerns around proceeding with a   
   >vaccine rollout for healthy children.   
   >The memo warned that “urgent” consideration must be given to the ethical   
   >and legal issues relating to rolling out a new vaccine for healthy   
   >children. It said vaccines were “invasive, irreversible and may have   
   >long-term side effects, as yet undefined”.   
   >ragout-top   
   >Vaccination of Children and Young People against SARS-COV-2: legal and   
   >ethical implications   
   >The vaccination of children and young people raises ethical and legal   
   >questions not met in adult vaccination. The extraordinary pace of the   
   >adult programme means that these issues now require urgent consideration.   
   >Vaccination saves lives but is invasive, irreversible and may have   
   >long-term side effects, as yet unidentified.   
   >The precautionary principle has been applied to date, with an existing   
   >recommendation that only children with severe neurodisabilities, where   
   >there is clear evidence that potential benefits outweigh potential   
   >risks, should be vaccinated below the age of 16 years.   
   >Mortality/morbidity in children and young people are very low in   
   >comparison to adults. The goals of mortality/morbidity reduction by   
   >individual vaccine protection are, consequently, less applicable.   
   >An ethical assessment of collective immunisation programmes would   
   >highlight safety and efficacy of both vaccine and programme,   
   >minimisation of burdens and benefits, a just distribution of burdens and   
   >benefits, voluntary valid consent where possible, and protection of   
   >public trust.   
   >The main questions are:-   
   >What are the goals of vaccinating children/ young people?   
   >What are the benefits and harms to individual children/ young people?   
   >Are there any practical alternatives to vaccinating this age group?   
   >Specific Issues   
   >Legal issues: Although not technically within the jurisdiction of MEAG   
   >or JCVI, these are worth noting as an indication of the degree to which   
   >ethical principles have been given institutional recognition. The   
   >relevant law in England and Wales is based on the Children Act 1989,   
   >which affirms a position adopted in previous statutes and judgements   
   >since the late 19th century, namely that the welfare of the child is   
   >paramount in all matters concerning children (s1, 1). The law in   
   >Scotland and Northern Ireland is similar. The UK has also ratified the   
   >UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which specifies the best   
   >interests of the child as the primary consideration. This has been   
   >incorporated into domestic law by the Welsh Government and the Scottish   
   >Government is proposing a similar move. The Children Act (s.1, 5) also   
   >establishes the principle of the ‘least restrictive alternative’, that   
   >an intervention should only take place if it is clearly better than no   
   >intervention.   
   >UK family law is very different from that in the US, where vaccines for   
   >children are being deployed. US family law is mostly at state rather   
   >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:-   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)