The Constitutional Court is scheduled to debate this week the appeal filed by the son of an elderly woman, incapacitated due to Alzheimer’s disease, who, despite being her mother’s guardian, could not impose her criteria contrary to her being vaccinated against Covid-19 in the residence where you are.
Faced with the son’s opposition, those responsible for the residence reported to the prosecutor and he requested judicial authorization for the woman to be vaccinated.
The center’s medical service revealed that she was the only resident who did not have the vaccinefor which reason he was in a situation of semi-isolation which, in the opinion of the health personnel, was further damaging his mental health.
[Covid: La OMS mantiene la emergencia mundial por los países que se han “atascado” en la respuesta]
The judge authorized vaccination in November 2021. He argued that the administration of the vaccine against Covid-19 “is a necessary medical-sanitary measure, which tends to adequately protect health the FRS”.
“Due to his age, his multipathological situation and his stay in a center for the elderly – where it is a notorious and public fact that there have been high rates of infection and mortality from Covid-19 -, [la vacuna] is configured as the only effective alternative for the adequate protection of his life against the real risk of developing a serious illness from Covid-19”, considered the Court.
She also assessed that “all of FRS’s fellow residents have been vaccinated except for her, which has meant that, in compliance with health regulations, she is in a state of semi-isolation imposed by social distancing rules“.
This situation, “coupled with his degenerative disease that prevents him from understanding his situation, is causing damage not only to his physical health (greater risk of contagion from the virus and, where appropriate, more adverse effects), but also to your mental health, then he has lost the closeness of those around him and consequently it looks deprived of gestures of affection“.
Resource
The son appealed to the Provincial Court against the Court’s decision, alleging that the vaccine “is not completely safe, it has not been possible to determine the absence of adverse effects, there are alternative medicines and the vaccine is in the experimental phase”, so it could harm his mother.
In April 2022, the appeal court confirmed the authorization to vaccinate the old woman. He indicated, among other arguments, that in the current state of the pandemic and the vaccination campaign, what the son indicated “could have some discussion in the initial phase of vaccination, [pero] is now largely outdated and has no foundation“.
The old woman’s son and guardian then appealed to the Constitutional Court, which, given the importance of the issue, referred the matter to the Plenary.
[El TC permite que una residencia vacune a una anciana con Alzheimer pese a oponerse su hijo]
The 11 magistrates that currently make up the TC plan to examine at their next meeting, which will begin on Tuesday, a paper in which they propose to deny the amparo.
According to TC sources, the presentation maintains that the anti-Covid vaccine, although it is not mandatory, was in this case the only means of protecting both the health of the elderly woman and that of the rest of the residents. They would be at risk of contagion if she is allowed to mix with the other elderly people without being vaccinated, and she herself could be infected by not being protected against the coronavirus by a vaccine whose efficacy has been proven.
The paper supports the decision of the judges who authorized the vaccination since it considers that they adequately weighed the goods in conflict and made the health of the old woman prevail over the criteria, not scientifically endorsed, of the son.
