In a ruling that has sparked widespread debate, the Vermont Supreme Court has determined that a family cannot sue a school district after their child was vaccinated against COVID-19 without parental consent. The court’s decision, based on the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, grants immunity to the school and state officials involved in the incident.
The case revolves around an incident in November 2021, when a child at Academy School received a dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine due to a mix-up with name tags. Despite the father’s clear instructions to school officials not to vaccinate his child and the child’s verbal objections, the vaccination was administered. The mistake was later recognized, and school officials apologized to the family, who then removed their child from the school.
The PREP Act, cited in the court’s decision, provides liability protection to “covered persons” during public health emergencies. In this case, the court ruled that the officials involved were protected under this act because the vaccine is classified as a “covered countermeasure.”
Critics of the ruling argue that it allows the school to escape accountability for administering a vaccine without parental consent. They stress that the school should be responsible for ensuring proper procedures are followed to prevent such errors and respect parental authority over their children’s medical decisions.
“To avoid dismissal on immunity grounds, plaintiffs would have had to present well-pleaded allegations showing that (1) at least one defendant was not a covered person, (2) some conduct by a defendant was not causally related to administering a covered countermeasure, (3) the substance injected into L.P. was not a covered countermeasure, or (4) there was no PREP Act declaration in effect at the time L.P. was injected,” the ruling reads.
This ruling affirms a January 2023 decision by a state superior court, but it has reignited concerns about the limits of the PREP Act and the accountability of educational institutions.
Many parents and advocates for children’s rights view this decision as a troubling precedent that undermines parental control and responsibility in medical matters.
The controversy highlights the delicate balance between public health measures and individual rights, particularly in situations involving minors and the consent of their guardians.
