‘I should decide if my vulnerable adult son has a Covid vaccine – not a judge’ Sarah’s instinct to protect Tom, a 24-year-old with complex medical conditions, could be overridden by one of Britain’s most powerful courts https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/parenting/children/covid-vaccine-health-risks-court-heart-vulnerable-son/ ‘They should be proving to us that it’s safe, not me trying to prove it isn’t’ ‘All I’ve ever wanted to be is a great mother and to protect my son’ Mum Sarah and son Tom (23 years / 18 months LD) Congenital heart condition Chromosomal condition, Partial Trisomy 13 She dared to question whether the Covid-19 vaccine was safe for her vulnerable son Nearly three years, Court of Protection Whether the greater good – for Tom and society – will be served by him being injected (despite complex medical conditions) Sarah Claims state being “heavy-handed”, insisting it knows better than a mother. Tom had all his childhood vaccines. Her fear about the vaccine mRNA suitable in multiple pathology? Dentists, needs antibiotics 2021 Tom contracted covid twice, recovered quickly. Sarah repeatedly asking medical professionals “I went to talk to my GP about my concerns,” “I explained that I was worried there was a possibility the vaccine could cause myocarditis or pericarditis” “At the end of our chat when I said I was concerned about Tom having the vaccine, the doctor simply said he needed to tick some boxes for the relevant “agencies”. I didn’t think any more of it.” A few days later Social worker unexpected visit. Then, a physiotherapist Both questioned about why Tom had not yet had the vaccine. “I felt they should be proving to us that it’s safe, not me trying to prove it is not safe.” April 2021 Court summons, signalling the beginning of a protracted and ongoing legal tussle with the state. Judge Burrows legal “impasse” “on the advice given to clinicians by effectively the UK Government” Sarah “the risks posed by the vaccine were unclear and maybe significant.” Judge Burrows Tom was in an at-risk group, “the evidence is that vaccines do give protection against serious illness and death.” Whether Tom “may have made an altruistic decision to receive the vaccine to protect the community at large” “In other words: might Tom have behaved like a responsible citizen and considered the effect of his decision on other people had he made the decision for himself.” “it is in Tom’s best interest to receive the vaccine” Court battle is still ongoing. Sarah Crowdfunding site – “Forced Vaccinations On Our Loved Ones” So far, those who believe mother knows best have raised more than £35,000. Sarah has spent £25,000 of her own life savings. Professor World expert in Trisomy 13, told the court the vaccine could pose a threat to Tom. If the court ultimately orders that Tom should be vaccinated, any attempt by his mother to prevent that happening could culminate in her being jailed or assets being seized. Sarah “‘He is currently a fit and well young man with no comorbidities and he takes no medications. “The injection could potentially injure or kill him. If he is given the vaccine, one of my greatest fears is that he cannot speak and express how he is feeling should he have an adverse reaction. “I have dedicated my whole life to overseeing his health and worked tirelessly with the medical community to develop intricate and personalised care regimes,” “It’s my care which has contributed to Tom living until he is 24, despite Trisomy 13 often resulting in a limited lifespan. “For the judge to believe that Tom would take it for the sake of others – the so-called altruistic view – denies the possibility that there is any risk at all to Tom. “I would think he’d protect his own life by not taking it.” “All I have ever wanted to be is a great mother and to protect my son. I believe that as his mother, I know what is best for him.” https://twitter.com/ClareCraigPath