Parents were divided on whether to vaccinate their minor children against the Covid-19, while one minor wished to be vaccinated but the other opposed.
The Court held that only the minor who agreed to receive the vaccine should be vaccinated, despite the controversy between his parents. The Law stipulates that along with the duty of parents to take care of their minor children, they also have autonomy in making choices for them. Thus, intervention of external parties in such autonomy shall be done only in exceptional cases. For example, when a parent is not properly fulfilling his duties or abusing his powers in a way that endangers or harms the child. Regarding medical matters, such intervention shall be made with the assistance of a medical opinion, or, in the case of vaccines, according to guidelines published by the relevant authorities. In addition, great consideration shall be given to the minor's will, as well as to the importance of the medical matter, its necessity and urgency. Here, the Ministry of Health’s position is that the Covid-19 vaccine is effective for the protection of the public, including adolescents, and that its side effects among adolescents are rare and non-serious. Further, due to the prevailing situation in the world, there is an urgency and necessity in taking the vaccine, which justifies intervening in the parents autonomy. However, because the child’s will is a main consideration, only the one who agreed to receive the vaccine should be vaccinated.