Clinicians will be reluctant to administer covid-19 jabs to children without parental consent according to Oxford Family Law Professor Lucinda Ferguson. She told The Telegraph this morning that injecting a child without parental permission is “technically battery.”
Yesterday, vaccine minister Nadhim Zahawi said that if a 12- to 15-year-old said yes to the jab and was deemed to be “competent” then their decision would overrule the parents’ refusal.
However, according to The Telegraph:
Lucinda Ferguson, associate professor of family law at the University of Oxford, said: “In my view the clinician may well be reluctant to accept that because alongside that, you’ve now got the JCVI saying that they don’t consider it to be essentially in the medical best interests of children more generally.
She added: “At least at this early stage would be reluctant to accept that that consent [from a child] is good enough because of course if you treat a child without informed consent, either from them, or from a parent with parental responsibility, it’s technically battery and that would be what would be concerning the clinician.”
That seems perfectly reasonable to me. If I was a parent and my child was underage, I would consider it an assault if anyone laid their hands on the child without my express permission.
Further to that, aren’t those administering the jabs putting themselves at risk of litigation, if they ignore the parents wishes that the child not be jabbed and the child is subsequently injured?
Good luck relying on a defence that the now injured child gave you permission to inject her and that in your mind her wishes superseded those of her parents. No credible judge or jury would buy that.
