A judge backs the city council who refused to enroll a non-vaccinated child in a day care center | Society

A judge has just endorsed the decision of a municipality in the Maresme district of Barcelona that refused to enroll in the municipal daycare to a child who was not vaccinated The magistrate of the Contentious Administrative Court number 16 of Barcelona, ​​Laura Mestres Estruch, issued the sentence on January 8. In it he argues that, when wanting to enroll the unvaccinated child, the parents "forget the rights of others, since they understand that their right to attend a daycare is superior to the right to health of other children."

The sentence comes after the complaint filed on May 31 by the family of the minor against the municipality of Maresme when denying the registration to his son in the municipal nursery because he was not vaccinated. In the lawsuit, the parents appealed to the right of ideological freedom when deciding do not vaccinate your child arguing that it should be respected through the neutrality of the decisions of the Administration in the matter of religions, creeds and beliefs, has explained to Efe the lawyer Dídac Coll, who defended the interests of the city council.

In this regard, the judge ruled that "there is no indication of violation of ideological freedom" given that the family "has not been forced at any time to vaccinate their child, which is mandatory with sanctions in neighboring countries democratic". The judge adds that people who do not vaccinate "in turn take advantage of the effects of group protection that is based on 95% of the population is immunized thanks to compliance with the immunization schedule."

At the trial, the city council had the testimony of the head of pediatrics at the Vall d'Hebron Hospital in Barcelona, ​​Carlos Rodrigo Gonzalo de Llíria. He explained that the nursery "is a risk place where you can get certain infections of the condition of children, which are very small and are in the process of vaccination, so they are more vulnerable," according to the lawyer. During the trial, the plaintiff parents explained that "the harm of vaccinating the child outweighs the benefits" and presented several documents on the adverse and side effects of the vaccines.

The pediatrician, who according to the sentence is "one of the greatest experts in vaccination in our environment," refuted the arguments presented by the parents. He explained that "no public institution, government, public administration, or committee or scientific society or health field of recognized prestige supports the thesis of anti-vaccines, but quite the opposite."

For its part, the family argued that the rules of the municipal nursery requested the presentation of the vaccination card without specifying that it should be up to date. The ruling states that the booklet presented "was blank", which "supposes a reduction to the absurd of the sense of the normal, of its spirit and logic" and "does not certify anything". Although "there is some jurisprudence in which the need for vaccination is defended" the novelty in this sentence is that "it does so with broader parameters that can be applied to the entire population," the lawyer argued.

The sentence also recalls the death in June 2015 in Olot (Girona) of a child under six years old infected by diphtheria to which his parents had decided not to vaccinate.


Source link