[continued from previous message]   
      
   >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,   
   >for political reasons, of critical independent experts to clear the way   
   >for some of the most contentious policy decisions of the pandemic   
   >period,” she added.   
   >‘Several witnesses were asked about MEAG’   
   >A Covid inquiry spokesman said that the role of the group had been   
   >examined, adding: “Several witnesses were asked about MEAG during their   
   >oral evidence during the Module 2 hearing and it has also been   
   >referenced in others’ witness statements.   
   >“The inquiry also obtained, put into evidence and published a statement   
   >from MEAG’s co-chair.   
   >“Baroness Heather Hallett’s reports do not cover every issue canvassed   
   >in evidence. Instead, they focus on those that the chair considers most   
   >relevant to her findings and recommendations.   
   >“Further reports will follow in 2026, and the chair intends to publish   
   >her 10th and final report in the first half of 2027.”   
   >A Department of Health spokesman said: “The claims that MEAG were told   
   >by the chief medical officer not to put their recommendations in writing   
   >are categorically untrue.”   
      
      
   In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of   
   GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's   
   secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)