[ad_1]
In the absence of evidence, the court of first instance acquitted a pediatrician accused of falsely registering the administration of compulsory vaccines in the vaccination book of a child at the request of a parent.
In a statement posted on the court’s website on Friday, the Metropolitan Court wrote that a parent had asked the doctor to have a home-born GP in 2011. In the exercise of official authority, the pediatrician, “de this way, as an official, “he pointed out the father’s request that his son not receive any vaccines because he does not believe in them. The father stated that
vaccines only cause harm.
The doctor agreed to the request, and when the six mandatory vaccinations expired, also in the vaccination book, the child’s home page, the vaccination declaration and the computer system.
falsely recorded the fact that the child had received the vaccines.
The girl’s mother moved to another settlement after her partner’s death, then told her new pediatrician on March 26, 2015 that she suspected her son had not received any mandatory vaccinations before. The new pediatrician reported the case to the appropriate government agency.
The Court of First Instance based its opinion of lack of evidence on the fact that the expert who evaluated the results of the blood test performed on the minor, who was assigned to the Court, stated:
It cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt whether the child has received the required vaccinations after birth,
in particular tetanus, which can be detected in the blood by subsequent tests. The court also stated in its reasoning that no laboratory tests had been performed on the other mandatory vaccines.
The court emphasized that the testimony of the mother and the new family doctor of the minor should have been excluded from the test by procedural rules, since the mother was not warned at the time of the recording that she was not obliged to answer questions accusing her or her relatives. relative to commit a crime. In order to use the pediatrician’s testimony as evidence, it would certainly have been necessary for the child’s mother, as the owner of the secret, to release the doctor from his duty of confidentiality, but this was not explained.
The trial court acquitted the accused of the charges against him on the basis of an evaluation of the evidence.
The verdict was not final, the prosecutor filed an appeal on the basis of unfounded findings of fact and guilt: read the court notice.
[ad_2]
