The Strasbourg court finally released the parents who refused to vaccinate their babies against DT-Polio, the only compulsory vaccine in France.
An emblematic case of the growing mistrust of vaccination. Mickaël Lecomte appeared on November 9 before the Strasbourg Criminal Court (Bas-Rhin). The 36-year-old father refused to have his baby vaccinated against diphtheria, polio and tetanus, when it is mandatory.
Finally, the court released the parents. “They were released because the offense was not constituted at the time of the facts, because of the age of the child”, who was then only 14 months, while the law requires the DT Polio vaccination before the age of 18 months, explained Me Fabienne Hagemann, lawyer for the Themis association, appointed by the prosecution to represent the interests of the child.
At the origin of this case, a report to the prosecutor. Mickaël Lecomte and his son cannot join Adélaïde, a soldier by profession, on a mission in Gabon. Indeed, the boy is not protected against diseases requiring compulsory vaccination in France. A situation that is reported from the first visit to the international vaccination center.
To explain this void in the health record, the father puts forward several arguments. First, he explains, the mandatory vaccine (DT-Polio) has not been marketed since 2008. In fact, it is out of stock. Only versions “combined” with other valences are available.
The other criticism that Mickaël Lecomte makes in the medical world is the pressure he exerts on his family. “We scare you, we make you feel guilty, we blackmail you, threats so that you give in, he explains to BFM TV. But I had no scientific explanation. (…) We are not given any information: neither the composition, nor the manufacture. It is not a relationship of trust with the doctor. “
Vaccination with DT-Polio remains compulsory in France. Anyone refusing to submit to it risks six months in prison and a fine of 3,750 euros. But this situation could change.
PS MP Sandrine Hurel should soon make a report on vaccine policy in France. In particular, it will rule on a possible lifting of the obligation. For its part, the National Academy of Medicine has clearly decided: in its eyes, “the answer is clearly no”, even if the number of obligatory valences should evolve.
.
