A divorced Lethbridge mom of two children aged 10 and 12 years old won a court case to have her children vaccinated against their father’s wishes..In order to protect the medical privacy of the parents and children named in the litigation, the full names of all parties have been withheld from the public..The parents, who divorced in 2014, share custody of the children and have shared the responsibility for their care, including the decision to have them fully vaccinated with their childhood and flu vaccines..However, the divorced couple did not agree when it came to having their two children vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus..The mother, in favour of the vaccine, stated a number of reasons in the lawsuit including to give her children added protection against COVID-19, to allow for them to safely return to “more regular activities” and to “teach them social and community responsibility.”.The father opposed the vaccines for their children due to his concerns around the “risk associated with the vaccine” compared to that of the children contracting COVID-19. He requested their vaccinations be delayed “until further evidence is available regarding the safety of the vaccine.”.As stated in the decision by Justice Johnna C. Kubik, part of the deciding factors she reviewed were items submitted into evidence by the mother which included publications from the government of Canada and Alberta relating to the vaccine, its approval, side effects and efficacy..Although the father’s counsel refuted the mother’s evidence calling it “propaganda,” the justice said she was not presented with any evidence to prove the government is “willfully misleading its citizens about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines,” particularly referencing the Pfizer-BioNTech version currently approved for use in children aged 5-11..The justice also said she took the scientific evidence, including regulatory approval of Pfizer’s pediatric vaccine into consideration and concluded, “I accept that evidence as an accurate reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge regarding both the virus and the vaccine.”.The justice ruled in favour of the mother and has granted her the right to have her children vaccinated against COVID-19 based on the following facts stated in her ruling:.Vaccination is prophylactic medical treatment. Its primary purpose is to prevent the vaccine recipient from contracting illness. Vaccination also serves the purpose of limiting the spread of illness by limiting its transmissibility. Finally, vaccination of eligible recipients protects those who cannot be vaccinated due to contraindications to the vaccine or health conditions which might prevent vaccination.Vaccination, like all medical treatment, comes with risk. In the case of the PfizerBioNTech vaccine those risks include transitory symptoms such as injection site pain, fatigue, and headache (to name a few), and more serious side effects such as myocarditis. Myocarditis was not observed in any of the clinical trials associated with testing of the vaccine on children aged 12-17. To the extent that there have been reports of myocarditis in the 12-17 age group outside of clinical trials, Health Canada recommended continued surveillance with respect to the side effect and a requirement that vaccine recipients in this age group receive information about this particular risk, as well as the other side effects. This ensures informed consent. It should be noted that the PfizerBioNTech vaccination had 100% clinical efficacy amongst 12-17-year-olds engaged in the clinical trial. Additionally, vaccination for COVID-19 has not caused the death of any children in clinical trials.Illness from COVID-19 also comes with risk, including transitory flu-like symptoms, more serious pneumonia-like symptoms, and the need for hospitalization including mechanical ventilation, and in some cases long-term health consequences. Children in Canada have died from COVID-19.BPB and ARB are both healthy children who have received all of their regular childhood immunizations and receive an annual flu shot. Their family physician has provided a letter in this proceeding, advising that neither child suffers from a medical condition which would prevent them from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine or cause the vaccine to be harmful. While the father objects to their doctor’s letter as improperly tendered expert opinion, it should be noted that the doctor makes no recommendation as to whether they should be vaccinated, and the information provided by him is consistent with the parents’ own description of their children as healthy, and having robust immune systems..More to come….Melanie Risdon is a reporter for the Western Standard.,.mrisdon@westernstandardonline.com
A divorced Lethbridge mom of two children aged 10 and 12 years old won a court case to have her children vaccinated against their father’s wishes..In order to protect the medical privacy of the parents and children named in the litigation, the full names of all parties have been withheld from the public..The parents, who divorced in 2014, share custody of the children and have shared the responsibility for their care, including the decision to have them fully vaccinated with their childhood and flu vaccines..However, the divorced couple did not agree when it came to having their two children vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus..The mother, in favour of the vaccine, stated a number of reasons in the lawsuit including to give her children added protection against COVID-19, to allow for them to safely return to “more regular activities” and to “teach them social and community responsibility.”.The father opposed the vaccines for their children due to his concerns around the “risk associated with the vaccine” compared to that of the children contracting COVID-19. He requested their vaccinations be delayed “until further evidence is available regarding the safety of the vaccine.”.As stated in the decision by Justice Johnna C. Kubik, part of the deciding factors she reviewed were items submitted into evidence by the mother which included publications from the government of Canada and Alberta relating to the vaccine, its approval, side effects and efficacy..Although the father’s counsel refuted the mother’s evidence calling it “propaganda,” the justice said she was not presented with any evidence to prove the government is “willfully misleading its citizens about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines,” particularly referencing the Pfizer-BioNTech version currently approved for use in children aged 5-11..The justice also said she took the scientific evidence, including regulatory approval of Pfizer’s pediatric vaccine into consideration and concluded, “I accept that evidence as an accurate reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge regarding both the virus and the vaccine.”.The justice ruled in favour of the mother and has granted her the right to have her children vaccinated against COVID-19 based on the following facts stated in her ruling:.Vaccination is prophylactic medical treatment. Its primary purpose is to prevent the vaccine recipient from contracting illness. Vaccination also serves the purpose of limiting the spread of illness by limiting its transmissibility. Finally, vaccination of eligible recipients protects those who cannot be vaccinated due to contraindications to the vaccine or health conditions which might prevent vaccination.Vaccination, like all medical treatment, comes with risk. In the case of the PfizerBioNTech vaccine those risks include transitory symptoms such as injection site pain, fatigue, and headache (to name a few), and more serious side effects such as myocarditis. Myocarditis was not observed in any of the clinical trials associated with testing of the vaccine on children aged 12-17. To the extent that there have been reports of myocarditis in the 12-17 age group outside of clinical trials, Health Canada recommended continued surveillance with respect to the side effect and a requirement that vaccine recipients in this age group receive information about this particular risk, as well as the other side effects. This ensures informed consent. It should be noted that the PfizerBioNTech vaccination had 100% clinical efficacy amongst 12-17-year-olds engaged in the clinical trial. Additionally, vaccination for COVID-19 has not caused the death of any children in clinical trials.Illness from COVID-19 also comes with risk, including transitory flu-like symptoms, more serious pneumonia-like symptoms, and the need for hospitalization including mechanical ventilation, and in some cases long-term health consequences. Children in Canada have died from COVID-19.BPB and ARB are both healthy children who have received all of their regular childhood immunizations and receive an annual flu shot. Their family physician has provided a letter in this proceeding, advising that neither child suffers from a medical condition which would prevent them from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine or cause the vaccine to be harmful. While the father objects to their doctor’s letter as improperly tendered expert opinion, it should be noted that the doctor makes no recommendation as to whether they should be vaccinated, and the information provided by him is consistent with the parents’ own description of their children as healthy, and having robust immune systems..More to come….Melanie Risdon is a reporter for the Western Standard.,.mrisdon@westernstandardonline.com
