State Overreach

Mother wins battle to stop son having Covid vaccine she feared could kill him Crowd funding site for Tom and Sarah, Hope Accord, Landmark case Sarah, Tom’s mum Kafkaesque nightmare’ that nearly bankrupted her Franz Kafka German-language from Prague Writing fuses elements of realism and the fantastic Typically features isolated protagonists, facing bizarre or surrealistic predicaments and incomprehensible socio-bureaucratic powers. Tom (24) Rare heart condition, learning difficulties Chromosome abnormality Doctors and social workers Demanded that he be injected for the “greater good of society” The experts Professor, paediatrics Martin McCaffrey (US) Tom was more likely to suffer heart complications – such as myocarditis and pericarditis – if given the mRNA vaccine. Because Tom has partial trisomy 13 he was more likely to suffer heart complications if given the mRNA vaccine. Professor, paediatrics Adam Finn, (UK) Agreed with Prof McCaffrey, stressed the possibility of such adverse side-effects would not have changed public policy at the height of the pandemic. Sarah (60) Battle has eroded her trust in public organisations such as social services, doctors and the courts, Government introduced a policy that ignores individual circumstances. Spent her life savings (£25,000) plus £60,000 crowdfunding. Threatened with arrest, jail, seizure of her assets, possibility of Tom being removed from home to be “forcibly jabbed”. “It has felt like a Kafkaesque nightmare because I was taking on the state that wouldn’t budge. “I went from being a loving mother and Tom’s sole carer to a near criminal. I have been made to feel like a liar, a bad person and a fanatic. “I was wrongly accused of being an anti-vaxxer just for questioning whether this new gene therapy was right for my son and his complex conditions. To me, it was the state that was fanatical about its policy by bringing its might to bear down upon me. “Doctors, cardiologists, lawyers and social workers hid behind Government guidance, which is just that – guidance.” Court of Protection Assigned Tom a lawyer to act in his “best interests”. Lawyer and local integrated care board, agreed with vaccination Judge Burrows, Tom was in an at-risk group and so should have the jab, Court was “ill-equipped” to say if the vaccine was safe or not but taking it was “altruistic” and required of every citizen. Mr Justice Hayden “no longer in Tom’s best interests to receive the jab” “changing landscape of the virus and increasing immunity within the community” had created a “wholly changed situation” “genuinely pleased” to conclude it was “no longer in Tom’s best interests to receive the Covid vaccination”. Paul Diamond, Sarah’s barrister “mother who loves her child” In future all parties involved in similar legal disputes should adopt a “more cooperative” rather than “aggressive” approach. Stephen Jackson, Sarah’s solicitor “love and good decision-making meant he is now 24 years old”. Ruling that the judge’s reliance on the virus’s “changing landscape” meant he had not tackled “uncomfortable issues”. “Prof McCaffrey’s findings were that the working assumption should be that individuals with trisomy – those who have 47 instead of 46 chromosomes – may be less able to cope with mRNA gene therapy technology in the vaccine,” “More investigation is needed. But anyone caring for those with trisomy conditions, such as Down’s Syndrome and Edwards’ Syndrome, should be made aware of Prof McCaffrey’s warning.” “Yet the court and state and lawyers and medics who’ve never met Tom decided they should make decisions for him and denied his mother had any rights at all. “State overreach and attack on the family unit could not be clearer. This situation is being faced by many families up and down the land.”