23rd July 2021 ✦ Laura (RGB)
In September 2021, the experimental gene therapies known as ‘COVID vaccines’ will be rolled out to children in schools. This will come with heavy propaganda designed to coerce people to have their children injected, and shame those who do not. There is also a very real danger that children will be injected without their parents’ knowledge and consent.
Can children consent to medical treatment?
The CQC, the state regulator (although it purports to be an independent body) of “health and social care” in England, has this to say about the age of consent:
- “In health care matters, an 18 year old [has] as much autonomy as [an] adult.”
- “16 and 17 year-olds can also take medical decisions independently of their parents. “
- “The right of younger children to provide independent consent is proportionate to their competence.”
These are roughly in line with the Nuremburg Code (established after the abuses by the Germans in the Second World War) which states that patients must give “informed consent” to treatment. This means that doctors have a duty to inform a patient of any potential consequences of treatment, so as not to mislead them into taking uninformed action to damage their health. Whilst children may give some limited consent, depending on the circumstances, this is reliant upon their level of competence.
How is a child’s ‘competence’ assessed?
There are two terms associated with young children consenting to medical treatment: Gillick competence, concerned with “determining a child’s capacity to consent”; and the Fraser guidelines, which are used specifically to decide if a child can consent to sexual health advice and treatment.
According to the CQC, the ‘Gillick test’ is purported to be sufficient in establishing whether or not a child (individually assessed for specific treatments) has the “capacity to provide consent to treatment”. The child must be deemed to possess “sufficient understanding and intelligence to fully understand what is involved in a proposed treatment, including its purpose, nature, likely effects and risks, chances of success and the availability of other options.”
According to the NSPCC, “there is no set of defined questions to assess Gillick competency.” Professionals are simply trusted to consider a number of things during their assessment, including:
- the child’s age, maturity and mental capacity
- their understanding of the issue and what it involves – including advantages, disadvantages and potential long-term impact
- their understanding of the risks, implications and consequences that may arise from their decision
- how well they understand any advice or information they have been given
- their understanding of any alternative options, if available
- their ability to explain a rationale around their reasoning and decision making.
A child who ‘passes the Gillick test’ is considered ‘Gillick competent’, and able to consent to the specific medical treatment they are being assessed for. This consent is only considered valid if ‘given voluntarily and not under undue influence or pressure by anyone else’.
Fraser guidelines build on the notion of ‘Gillick competence’ to address the specific issue of giving contraceptive advice and treatment, decisions about sexually transmitted infections and abortions to children under 16. The House of Lords concluded that advice can be given as long as:
- He/she has sufficient maturity and intelligence to understand the nature and implications of the proposed treatment
- He/she cannot be persuaded to tell her parents or to allow the doctor to tell them
- He/she is very likely to begin or continue having sexual intercourse with or without contraceptive treatment
- His/her physical or mental health is likely to suffer unless he/she received the advice or treatment
- The advice or treatment is in the young person’s best interests.
The ‘healthcare professional’ can provide advice and treatment confidentially (unless there is reason to believe the child is “under pressure to give consent or is being exploited”).
There is no lower age limit for Gillick competence or Fraser guidelines to be applied – although the CQC admits that “it would rarely be appropriate or safe for a child less than 13 years of age to consent to treatment without a parent’s involvement”.
A young person can also have their refusal of treatment denied. According to the CQC:
“Young people aged 16 or 17 are presumed in law, like adults, to have the capacity to consent to medical treatment. However, unlike adults, their refusal of treatment can in some circumstances be overridden by a parent, someone with parental responsibility or a court. This is because we have an overriding duty to act in the best interests of a child. This would include circumstances where refusal would likely lead to death, severe permanent injury or irreversible mental or physical harm.”
What does this mean for our current situation?
Will doctors deem children competent to consent to the COVID injection?
At the current time, children and young adults across the country are being encouraged, coerced or required to undergo medical treatments such as PCR testing and hand sanitizing, and wearing of PPE (face coverings). Come September (if not earlier), experimental mRNA injections will be added to this list. The mRNA injections are still in human trials until 2023, and they can and have caused permanent injury and death.
The issue of whether or not a child is able to understand the treatment depends on whether or not UK healthcare professionals are providing children sufficient information about the injection’s purpose, nature, likely effect and risks, chances of success and the availability of other options. As it stands, UK healthcare professionals are systematically failing to do this even for adults.
Patients are not offered the required informative literature when they go for their injection, and the package leaflet, if supplied, downplays side effects as “mostly mild or moderate” despite growing evidence of extreme side effects and fatalities. Administering nurses are not guaranteed to be aware of what the injection even contains, and reports say that the side effects of the injections are being denied by doctors and nurses. The numbers of deaths and injuries associated with the injection are underreported, suppressed or inaccurate; and remedies for COVID such as hydroxychloroquine and zinc or ivermectin are either being defamed, censored or ignored – the government narrative throughout the pandemic is that ‘the vaccine is the only way out’. Many people are still under the illusion that the mRNA vaccines prevent infection and transmission, despite a panoply of contrary scientific data – this misunderstanding is propagated by government propaganda, which misleads the public by constantly claiming that getting the injection will protect not just themselves but will “protect others”.
If even adults are denied the opportunity to give informed consent, due to fabricated statistics, unscientific claims and a lack of required information to develop an understanding, then a child cannot. Without sufficient and accurate information provided to the child, the Gillick test cannot be performed properly for the ‘COVID vaccines’ – a child cannot be declared to have the competence and capacity to consent to the procedure, even by the government healthcare bodies’ own definition of ‘competence’.
This said, there has begun an effort to ‘educate’ children in schools through the rollout of pro-injection propaganda. However, this is not performed by independent practitioners qualified in medicine and is conducted in a manner to mislead pupils. The mRNA injection is promoted, but not explained to the necessary legal threshold, lacking adequate exploration of the dangers or long-term impact or perspective on risk by age demographic. Children are almost entirely untouched by Covid-19, even by skewed government data. The incidence of side-effects is downplayed and the distinction between mRNA injections and traditional vaccines is not made, and critics of the COVID injections are demonised as dangerous conspiracy theorists. There is no mention of the fact that the injection is experimental and still in human trials. There is no information about SAR-COV-2’s risk to a child under 18. There is no mention of other options.
This is not provision of sufficient information. They will, of course, pretend it is.
Recently, a BBC newsround program was shown in schools in which Devi Sridhar told children that the injection is “100% safe” – an outright lie, given that children have already been disabled and killed by the injections, and no medical treatment can be said to be 100% safe. The BBC apologised for this, but there was no follow up in schools to inform children of this misinformation. The damage has already been done.
There is also widespread and heavy-handed coercion happening – by professionals such as doctors, nurses, teachers, business owners; but also in the media and amongst the general public – which further destroys the capacity of a child to legally consent to this procedure. If a child is at any point told, for example, that it is good to get the injection because it will save Grandma’s life, or because it will make them a hero, this is clear and heavy-handed coercion. Peer-pressure and bullying by other children (“Eww…you’re going to spread the disease!”) or fear-of-missing-out (“My friends all got the vaccine, I want the vaccine too!”) is also a relevant factor, which will affect the vast majority of children and may not be admitted or consciously recognised by the child.
Therefore, unless a doctor can assure that a child has had sufficient and accurate information about the risks and benefits of the injection (which is rarely or never being provided, even to adults), and is not under any form or coercion or pressure (which is likely impossible in the current situation) he cannot declare a child ‘Gillick competent’ and able to consent to an injection without parental consent or knowledge.
Unfortunately, this reality will not stop this from happening. We are faced with the very real danger that Gillick competence will be ‘assessed’ in children under 16, and many children will be declared capable of consenting to an injection despite not having anywhere near sufficient information to do so and/or being under coercion and pressure to take it. As doctors and nurses are widely ill-informed and under coercion themselves, it is unlikely that many if any healthcare professionals will perform the Gillick test accurately or competently.
And if they did, then a child who is truly informed – with the required intelligence and understanding of the treatment, and free from coercion or pressure – would not consent to the injection.
Yet if a child refuses, they face the danger of their refusal being overridden by their parents or the state – because, it would be alleged, “it’s in their best interests”. If a parent or other body of authority argues that a child not being injected is a risk to personal or public health, the child can be forcibly injected – despite explicitly not consenting. The latest government roadmap document on pandemic predictions (SPI-M-O, 31 March 2021) is trying to claim that a ‘third wave’ in the UK will be partly caused by the fact that many children have yet to be injected – a wave which may be, unlike the others, a visible health crisis due to many previously-healthy adults being vulnerable to the disease because of their weakened immune systems. It is not unimaginable that children’s refusals will be overridden in the name of public health.
Parents must keep close and careful attention on what their child is being told and made to believe in schools, and on any potential school plan to administer the injections within school hours and premises. If possible, they should remove their child from school and home educate. Children of all ages need to be protected from coercion and educated about informed consent. Headteachers need to be made aware that they could be found personally accountable if any child is harmed as part of any medical experiments run in their school.
Links and sources:
Pamphlet information supplied with injections:
Discussion of the underreporting and suppression of injection adverse affects on UK Column News (10th May 202) with fully refences sources:
‘Vaccine is only way out of this mess’, says public health adviser
‘Get the jab to protect your friends and family’ – propaganda by the BBC.
School propaganda for vaccines, ‘‘Are Vaccines Safe’:
SPI-M-O: Summary of further modelling of easing restrictions – Roadmap Step 2, 31 March 2021 – section 31: