An attempt to block the vaccine being offered to teenagers has been thrown out by a High Court judge.
An anti-vax mother-of-two tried to stop the rollout in its tracks by taking out an injunction against the health department.
If successful, a court order would have halted efforts under way in schools since last month to inoculate 12 to 17-year-olds against Covid-19.
A vaccination programme for 16 and 17-year-olds has been running since August 5 following advice from independent vaccine experts.
In September, the UK’s four chief medical officers (CMOs) announced that children aged 12 to 15 should be offered a first dose of the vaccine after being invited to consider the wider benefits of increasing protection, including reducing disruption to education.
The mother – acting on behalf of her children and who cannot be named for legal reasons – also sought a judicial review of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) authorisation of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines for teenagers.
She lost both cases but a judge adjourned a decision on the woman’s linked challenge over the government’s decision to offer jabs to 12 to 17-year-olds to a later date.
Lawyers for the mother argued it would be ‘irrational’ for the government to conclude there had been a ‘public health crisis for children’ and to ‘implement a mass vaccination campaign for healthy children’.
In previous written arguments, they claimed Covid-19 poses an ‘exceptionally low risk’ to the age groups which are the focus of the woman’s legal challenge, and ‘healthy children have no need of these vaccines’.
They argued such considerations and available evidence mean ‘no reasonable decision maker’ could have authorised the vaccines or their rollout for under-18s.
The mother, who does not intend to allow her children to be vaccinated, also claimed she faces ‘pressure from teachers, victimisation and bullying if her children do not take the vaccine’.
Acting on behalf of the government, Ewan West said in written arguments it is ‘clear’ the MHRA, the JCVI and the CMOs ‘have taken a wide range of data into account, have carefully weighed it, and reached a balanced view’.
He added: ‘The claimants do not agree that the balance has been correctly placed; but that disagreement does not render it unlawful.’
Mr West argued the ongoing vaccine programme is ‘entirely voluntary’ and ‘there is no question of mandatory vaccination for the two children on whose behalf the claim is brought, or any other children’.
He also warned an injunction would mean public health benefits ‘will be delayed, and in some instances lost’.
Parents of people under 16 are asked to give consent for their children to be vaccinated, but in some circumstances a child can press ahead against their wishes.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
from News – Metro https://ift.tt/3mbj26I
0 Comments