In a landmark decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court has authorized a lawsuit by Emily Happel and her son, Tanner Smith, against a school and a group of healthcare providers for administering a COVID-19 vaccine to Tanner without consent.
Breitbart reported that the court's reversal allows the family to pursue claims against those they believe violated their rights by vaccinating Tanner without his or his mother's approval.
The controversy began at a Guilford County high school in August 2021. A testing and vaccination clinic had been set up in response to a COVID-19 outbreak, particularly affecting Tanner's football team. Tanner visited the clinic just to get tested, not knowing that vaccinations were also being offered.
Despite Tanner clearly stating he did not wish to receive the vaccine, and the absence of a parental consent form, he was vaccinated. Clinic staff did not attempt to contact his mother, Emily, for permission before proceeding with the vaccination.
This incident sparked outrage from Tanner's family, leading to the hiring of attorney Steven Walker in 2022. They sought to address what they considered a serious overstepping of boundaries by the involved parties.
The legal argument centered around federal health emergency laws, which the lower court initially ruled protected the defendants from lawsuits. However, the North Carolina Supreme Court found otherwise, enabling the Happels' case to proceed.
The lawsuit accuses the Guilford County Board of Education and the Old North State Medical Society of battery, a legal term for wrongful physical contact, and of infringing on constitutional rights by vaccinating Tanner without proper consent.
A press release from Walker Kiger, PLLC, condemned the vaccination as illegal, stressing the moral and legal obligations to acquire informed consent, especially from minors.
Attorney Steven Walker expressed a broad concern shared by many, stating, "No matter what your position is on vaccines, we should all be able to agree that children should not be subjected to medical procedures without their parents’ knowledge and consent."
He highlighted the silence and lack of cooperation from the school and medical society as key reasons for pursuing the lawsuit.
The incident has raised a significant discussion about parental rights and public health responsibilities, especially in emergency health situations. Public reaction has been mixed, with some advocating for stricter controls on how vaccination is administered in schools.
Responses from political figures regarding broader vaccine policy have been varied. Rep. John Yarmuth criticized a general amendment about parental rights in healthcare, citing concerns about parental decision-making in medical issues.
Meanwhile, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene argued for removing COVID-19 vaccines from mandatory schedules, citing concerns about their safety and efficacy.
As legal preparations continue, the broader implications of this case on school-based vaccination programs are becoming a pivotal point of discussion.
The legal system's handling of such sensitive issues speaks volumes about the balance between public health policy and individual rights.
The decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court has not only reopened the Happel case but also set a precedent that might influence how similar cases are handled nationwide, especially in a climate where vaccination remains a hotly debated topic.
The outcome of this lawsuit is anticipated with keen interest by legal, educational, and health professionals across the United States, as it will likely influence future policies on minor consent in medical interventions at school settings.