My mother is a frail 83 years old, suffering from advanced Alzheimer’s, Emphysema and Ischaemic heart condition. She is resident in a specialist care home providing 24 hour care for her condition.
I hold Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for Health and Welfare and Property and finance although the property and finance is handled by a deputy solicitor because they are much closer to my mother’s location than I am and it is therefore much more convenient for handling her financial affairs.
Around Christmas of 2020, I was emailed by my mother’s care home, who dropped into the conversation that she was being vaccinated with the Covid-19 vaccine and they assumed I had no objections.
I did have objections, due to her frailty and the reported side effects of the vaccine. I refused to give my consent as her LPA and wrote an email to the care home as confirmation of my decision.
I then had a call from my mum’s GP. He made an effort to convince me to change my mind although it appeared that I knew more about the vaccine than he did because he could not answer questions about long term reactions to medication being taken by my mum, neither could he answer any questions as to why the virus did not appear in the public domain after being removed from the High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID) register. In fact, he had not heard of the HCID, I confirmed my decision to him and he assured me he would not be administering the vaccine.
Shortly after Christmas, I heard from a solicitor employed by my mum’s GP, threatening that I would be taken to court if I didn’t allow the vaccine.
About a week before the hearing, I received an email telling me that a ‘pack’ would be sent to me and I would be named as the respondent in the case. The papers were served by email and recorded delivery on the Friday19th March for the hearing on Wednesday 24th March. Leaving me, negating the weekend, two days to prepare a defence.
The hearing was to happen on 24th March at 4.00pm and was held remotely via Microsoft Teams.
The Judge entered the conversation and started the hearing by stating that he had read enough documentation to enable him to come to a decision and was not going to allow the ‘ping pong’ of questions and answers and would only be allowing closing statements by all parties. He then instructed me that my mic was to be muted until required to answer questions.
The judge asked if everyone was ready to complete the hearing today. I pointed out that barring the weekend, I had only had two days to produce a defence and had evidence on its way to me by post. I requested that it be delayed for a couple of days considering that the doctor had by now almost three months to prepare her case. This was refused on the grounds that this was urgent and no time could be wasted.
Various solicitors were allowed to state their case (7 in all) and I was then asked to comment. I asked if I could question the doctor, this was denied. I pointed out that the vaccine was only licenced under a temporary licence until testing had finished, therefore it was only an experimental procedure and because of unknown side effects I didn’t want my mother taking part in such an experiment, considering her frail condition. The judge muted me mid-sentence and simply said ok. He then told me that my mother was still in grave danger of catching the virus even though she was surrounded by people who were vaccinated and it was in her best interest to have the vaccine.
The judge then un-muted my mic and asked for comments.
I replied by saying that he had simply verified my point by showing that the vaccine did not actually do anything if my mother could still catch the virus surrounded by vaccinated people and there would be no point in giving her a vaccine that didn’t work. He muted me again.
Just before the Judges ‘summing up’ he asked for my closing comments.
I was surprised to hear two of the solicitors against me interrupt and advise the judge that they were of the opinion that they wanted nothing further to do with this hearing and were withdrawing their case. The judge accepted this.
I asked the judge to consider that my mum was frail and already suffering from a respiratory condition with her emphysema and heart condition. There was a safer alternative for such a frail old lady, which was to have a small finger prick antibody blood test to determine if my mother had antibodies because if this was proven to be the case, she wouldn’t need to take the experimental vaccine anyway whose known side effects were respiratory problems. My argument was just to give her the final ‘sledgehammer’ was not in her best interest as there were safer options to explore before giving an experimental vaccine that carried with it the potential for further unknown side effects, including unproven blood clots causing 20 European countries to suspend the vaccine until further tests were conducted. The judge did not respond, simply took a moment then muted me again. He then delivered his verdict that my mum was to be vaccinated at the earliest opportunity. The vaccine was administered six days later (not really that much of an emergency then!)
I had sent an email to the GP solicitor on the 29th asking that the vaccine be postponed because I had sent an appeal to the courts and had requested that the vaccine was ‘stayed’ until the results of the appeal. The solicitor acknowledged the appeal but ignored my request for the vaccine to be delayed until the results of the appeal had been decided.
Since this time, I have tried in vain to contact the home. Before mum was vaccinated, I had regular email replies, containing pictures and short resume of what mum had been doing. After the vaccine I cannot get anyone to even acknowledge my enquiries. I fear something has happened to her and they are covering it up. I am now at the point of calling the police to check on my mum’s welfare.
Quite obviously the home has been told not to speak to me, even though I hold an LPA for my mother.
As part of the evidence given to the court by the GP, she quoted that she believed that I was refusing my mum the vaccine because I had a conflict of interests in that I wanted her estate. My mother lives in a care home, she only has the clothes on her back, which I bought for her anyway. She has no estate.
I take that as accusing me of plotting to end my mother’s life, I would even go as far as to say of murdering her! I have this in writing and was submitted as evidence to the court.
Further in the GP’s evidence, she claims that I had the LPA for property and finance taken away from me because of financial abuse. This is simply untrue. There has never been any issues with this as this part of the LPA is managed by a deputy solicitor. I wouldn’t be able to do that if I wanted to.
The GP goes on to start name calling, I am an anti vaxxer, this, that and the other. This is just abuse without foundation and not the conduct I would expect from a professional.
My own thoughts
- Obviously I am concerned about my mother, not hearing from anyone despite multiple emails, letters etc. It sounds very suspicious in that in her frail state, she may have succumbed to side effects of the vaccine. I am not allowed to visit the home because of the Covid-19 regulations. I would like to find out her state of health
- II have researched some things for myself and although I am not a lawyer of any description I think I may have found some things that apply to my case. I would like to present them to you.
The Vaccine is only licenced under a temporary licence and not for marketing or resale dependent on ongoing testing, which makes it an experimental or trial vaccine. My mother’s doctor has taken me to court because she was insisting despite my objections as my mother’s LPA, that my mother was forced to take part in an experimental trial. My mother has been forced to take this experimental or trial vaccine against our/my wishes without the benefits of being given any information about risks/side effects of short/medium or long term effects. As can be seen. It is emerging that as tests on the effectiveness of the vaccine progress, there is a link between the AZ vaccine and potentially dangerous blood clots, causing other European countries to suspend their vaccination programs using the AZ vaccine.
My mother and I were never told about any of these issues, no doubt as tests progress, many more issues will be found.
My own theories on the legal position
As I have said already, I am not a lawyer but I have been studying the 2005 UNESCO bioethics human rights statement, which is required to be integrated into the laws of every member country of which the UK is a full member.
Studying article 6 of this statement, repeated below for clarity:
Article 6 – Consent
1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.
3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.
Part 1 clearly says that the individual has the right to refuse preventative medical procedure (the vaccine) and is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned. We were NOT given any information regarding the vaccine in order to be able to make an ‘informed’ choice and this was one of the reasons for my refusal.
They couldn’t tell me what side effects or other issues my mother might experience therefore I refused the vaccine.
Part 2 deals with the scientific research of a medical procedure and again requires the same informed consent. Which I did not give.
Part 3 essentially says that the individuals rights of consent comes before the collective or community wishes for such experimental or trial vaccines
I believe that all three of these sections have been breached when vaccinating my mother.
I draw your attention to article 7 of the statement. Again repeated here for clarity:
Article 7 – Persons without the capacity to consent
In accordance with domestic law, special protection is to be given to persons who do not have the capacity to consent:
(a) authorization for research and medical practice should be obtained in accordance with the best interest of the person concerned and in accordance with domestic law. However, the person concerned should be involved to the greatest extent possible in the decision-making process of consent, as well as that of withdrawing consent;
(b) research should only be carried out for his or her direct health benefit, subject to the authorization and the protective conditions prescribed by law, and if there is no research alternative of comparable effectiveness with research participants able to consent. Research which does not have potential direct health benefit should only be undertaken by way of exception, with the utmost restraint, exposing the person only to a minimal risk and minimal burden and, if the research is expected to contribute to the health benefit of other persons in the same category, subject to the conditions prescribed by law and compatible with the protection of the individual’s human rights. Refusal of such persons to take part in research should be respected.
In the introduction, ‘Domestic law’ in my mind refers to the courts of protection, LPA schemes etc.
I have abided by these laws and have been given the right by my mother and the courts to make decisions on her behalf in such situations. f she was incapacitated I made a promise to my mother that I would not let anyone harm her.
By ignoring my decisions, my mothers GP, via the courts have negated this ‘domestic law’ and have forced my mother to partake in an experimental (trial) medical procedure against the will of her lawfully appointed LPA (me).
To my mind this is in clear breach of my mothers human rights.
I also feel that the person administering the vaccine is guilty of assault and battery upon my mother.
I believe that it could be said by the authorities that article 27 is invoked in the presence of a public health outbreak, such as a pandemic where the ‘greater good’ takes precedence.
I disagree with this for the following reasons:
- The Coronavirus Act was given Royal Ascension on 24th March 2020, declaring a pandemic and thus a public health issue.
- On 13th March 2020, some six days earlier, the Coronavirus/Covid-19 was actually removed from the High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID) register and was never placed on any other register in the public domain.
- This was due to problems in isolating the virus and more importantly purifying the virus, which has not been achieved without having waste genetic material present, meaning that any further tests would not be valid because they could not differentiate if results were affected by the ‘virus’ or pathogen itself or by the genetic waste material.
- Therefore it could not be classified as a ‘virus’ as others have been that appear on the HCID register (HIV,Ebola,Smallpox etc)
- Meaning that at the time of the Royal Ascension, the Coronavirus/Covid-19, no longer being classified anywhere within the public domain, did not actually exist.
- If the virus did not exist, how can it be responsible for a public health crisis?
- Therefore I would suggest that the whole Coronavirus Act2020 is null and void.
- Under these circumstances then Article 3 of the 2005 UNESCO statement must take effect over article 27.
Article 3 – Human dignity and human rights
1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.
2. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.
Particularly section 2, that clearly says that the interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society. To my way of thinking, this is again a breach of my mother’s Human rights.
The end result is that my mother/ I were not given adequate information to make an informed consent to the vaccination and so I refused to give consent without this important information. This was ignored and my mother was vaccinated anyway. Since her vaccination, I have been unable to find out her condition and have met with a brick wall of silence, leading me to believe that something has happened to her because of the vaccination. I believe that the human rights of my mother have been breached by her GP/courts and want the appropriate action taken to remedy this situation.
In addition there were safe and reliable tests available that could determine if she indeed needed the vaccine in the first place. I requested these test to be conducted, considering her age and frailty, not an unreasonable request considering my mother’s ‘best interests’ yet this was refused”
She is a frail 83 year old who cannot leave her care home, indeed she cannot speak now and does not remember me as her son. My wish was for her to see her days out in relative comfort and peace. Now, as her court appointed LPA, I don’t know if she is still alive or not.
I hope you can help