[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> One former member recalled how, after a positive start, the group’s role   
   >> “fell off a cliff”, saying: “It became clear that the government   
   didn’t   
   >> want to listen to advice. It was frustrating, deeply frustrating.   
   >> “We tried hard to say ‘we have been mandated to do this work, and yet we   
   >> are not being allowed to do it. We are coming across obstacles, left   
   >> right and centre’. It just felt that we had been sidelined and, even   
   >> though we were built into the structure, we were circumvented.”   
   >> During autumn 2020, MEAG discussed the adult Covid vaccine programme and   
   >> stated that “honest and clear information” should be provided to allow   
   >> the public to “make an informed choice” about the jabs. It also said the   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)