誰為兒童決定接種疫苗？【寰宇醫事裁判】 試閱
Who Could Decide for Child to Have Vaccination?
一對業已離婚但仍對其子有共同撫養權的父母對於其子是否應接種新冠肺炎疫苗有所爭執。父親經徵詢家庭醫師意見同意讓其子接種疫苗，而母親則以疫苗為基因療法與疫苗接種所產生的副作用反對；兒童本人則有意願接種疫苗。邦高等法院首先認為，未滿16歲之兒童，縱使得以單獨表示意見是否接受醫療行為，仍須得具扶養權之父母一致之同意，使得與提供醫療院所建立醫療契約以形成醫療法律關係；若無法達成一致，則聲請家事法院決定由其中之一方為之。其次，目前已知疫苗接種所生之副作用遠小於未接種疫苗而染疫所造成之重症風險，更遑論該兒童所具有之先前疾病可能會嚴重化染疫病程，若不以即時判決則無法使之避免立即之危險或因防疫而生之基本權侵害。
A divorced parent who still had joint custody of their son had a dispute over whether their son should be vaccinated against COVID-19. The father, after consulting with his family physician, agreed to have his son vaccinated, while the mother objected to the vaccine on the grounds that it was a gene therapy and the possible side effects of vaccination; the child himself wanted to be vaccinated. The higher regional court first held that even if a child under the age of 16 can express his or her own opinion on whether to receive medical treatment, the unanimous consent of the custodial parent is still required, allowing the establishment of a medical contract with the providing facility to form a medical legal relationship; if the unanimity cannot be reached, the family court is called upon to decide which parent should do so. Second, it is known that the side effects of vaccination are much less than the risk of serious illness caused by an unvaccinated child, not to mention that the child’s prior illnesses may have aggravated the course of the infection, and that immediate danger or violation of basic rights arising from vaccination cannot be avoided without immediate adjudication.
107-117
