Intense week at the Constitutional Court. A marathon plenary session loaded with topics of special relevance will address in its final stretch a case without precedent until now and about which there is no doctrine. It will analyze several appeals presented on behalf of several minors and elderly people who were vaccinated against covid by order of the judges, after the parents or guardians disagreed on the matter.. The presentation fell to Vice President Inmaculada Montalbán, who supports that the protection of both those affected and those around them should be favored against other rights in conflict..

The appeals for protection were admitted in September 2022, as it was understood that they raise a problem that affects the principle of equality, the fundamental right to physical and moral integrity, the right to health protection and personal and family privacy.. They also warned then that the issue transcends the specific case because it raises a legal question of “relevant and general social repercussion”.

The appellants discussed the vaccination order. They alleged that the inoculation of a drug in the experimental phase must always be voluntary and, therefore, the judicial resolutions that forced them to inject themselves went against fundamental rights recognized not only in the Constitution, but also in international conventions and treaties..

Family courts suffered their particular wave related to covid in 2021. The vaccination of minors gave rise to a flood of requests for authorization or judicial stay of the inoculation of the doses in those cases in which there was disagreement between parents about whether or not their children should be immunized.. The doubts increased as this was the most vulnerable population and the differences in criteria, especially in separated or divorced couples, forced the Justice Department to rule..

In an overwhelming number of cases, the courts ruled in favor of the tutor who favored vaccination, and they did so taking into account the recommendations of the health authorities and the lack of evidence demonstrating that there is a danger.. The first sentences, first from Barcelona and then from Alicante, agreed with the parent who wanted to vaccinate against the one who opposed. To decide against a public recommendation of this magnitude, judges need concrete evidence of the existence of a risk in the particular case they are studying.. In this way, the only possibility for the injection to be provisionally stopped is for the person who opposes to present an expert report with precise data that proves the danger to the minor due to his or her specific circumstances..

The pioneering resolution, for example, was limited to assigning responsibility for the decision to one of the parents. The one who wanted to vaccinate, yes. The father expressed his rejection of vaccination due to the “uncertainty” about the effectiveness of the drugs and possible reactions. His children explained to the judge that they did not want to receive “the punctures” because the father told them about the “negative effects” of the preparations, although they did not know how to specify what those consequences were.. According to the resolution, the father did not argue his opposition to the vaccine “beyond information that he appears to have collected on the internet and social networks.”.

A second judge, in this case from Alicante, later ruled with similar arguments.. The judge highlighted that the opinions in favor of the vaccination of minors issued by both the European Medicines Agency and the Ministry of Health prevail, and the desire of the minor to be immunized against the opinion of the father, who questioned the benefits of vaccines, according to the ruling. The girl, who had already received the first dose before the trial, was inoculated for the second time a day after the ruling was issued..

In that case, the father and mother were separated and he filed a complaint after learning that his ex-wife had immunized the girl.. Their allegations were once again, as in the first case, generic.. “The vaccines are in the experimental phase, in the studies carried out they had not been introduced to minors, there is no medical prescription or prescription or there is no informed consent,” the ruling states.. He also alleged that the minor “suffered from a genetic disorder” without a prescription and doubted whether the side effects of the serums could constitute an aggravating factor.. And finally, always according to the ruling, “it questioned the benefits of vaccination in minors”.