Covid-19: What do we know so far about a vaccine?BMJ 2020; 369 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1679 (Published 27 April 2020) Cite this as: BMJ 2020;369:m1679
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Seemingly lacking from the discussion regarding vaccine trials (1), is consideration of the legality and ethics of testing unproven products on those unable to give informed consent, specifically children.
The Montgomery 2015 ruling (2) made the ethical and legal position clear: the doctor’s role is to ensure that relevant information is presented to enable the patient to use it meaningfully. Legally, consent law has been clarified and aligns with GMC guidance. (3)
It is established that Doctors should always act in the best interests of children and young people. Parents can consent to investigations and treatment that are in the young person’s best interests. This is particularly the case in relation to treatment that does not have proven health benefits, and is relevant where preliminary reports have suggested no significant proven benefit (4), or even adverse events (5).
Research involving children and young people can benefit all children; but they may be vulnerable because they cannot always recognise their best interests, express their needs or defend their rights. Children and young people should not usually be involved in research if they object or appear to object in either words or actions, even if their parents consent. And potential therapeutic benefits for them should outweigh any foreseeable risks (3)
Since children appear to be less severely affected by SARS-CoV-2 exposure (6), do potential benefits outweigh possible harm?
In terms of legislation, it is clear that,” Informed consent given by a person with parental responsibility for a minor taking part in a clinical trial shall represent the minor’s presumed will; and the interests of the patient always prevail over those of science and society”.(7) Indeed, the principles regarding human medical experimentation were laid out clearly in the Nuremberg Code as early as 1947. (8).
In addition, the Children Act 1989 allocates duties to parents, and other agencies to ensure children are safeguarded and their welfare is promoted.
In the current situation, where parents have experienced weeks of 'lockdown', fearful stories in the media, and worries about the future, their psychological stress levels are likely to impact rational decision-making in terms of informed consent. In fight-or-flight mode, survival is uppermost and nuances lost. And consent under duress is invalid.(9)
Perhaps it is premature to subject children to unknown risks at this early stage?
Competing interests: No competing interests
One thing seems certain about any vaccine that finds preferment: it will not have been trialed for very long  and it will not be possible to determine its long term effectiveness or harms.
Another question is will it have been trialed on the elderly and infirm - the very people who are at most at risk from the disease - or only the healthy and young? If the latter, will it be possible to determine anything about its wider safety and usefulness?
Will the young and healthy be better off acquiring some kind of immunity from the disease than having the vaccine (given the nature of immunity from this disease is anyhow somewhat uncertain)? And surely many will have already had the disease by the time there are such products. This invokes the issue of ‘primum non nocere’.
What is required in such circumstance is open discussion about the benefits and risks of such a programme, and - individually - fully informed consent, which British law requires at present, even if it seems sometimes to be only observed in the breach.
What the public does not deserve is heavy handed talk about herd immunity or compliance. It was not encouraging to read a recent discussion on the topic on MedPage Today . However serious our global predicament this may be even less the way to go than ever.
 Elisabeth Mahase, ‘Covid-19: What do we know so far about a vaccine?’, BMJ 2020; 369 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1679 (Published 27 April 2020)
 Ratzan, Larson & Rabin, ‘The Coronavirus Vaccine Race Is On — Someone will win, but then what?’ , MedPage Today 20 April 2020, https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86041
Competing interests: AgeofAutism.com, an on-line daily journal, concerns itself with the potential environmental sources for the proliferation of autism, neurological impairment, immune dysfunction and chronic disease. I receive no payment as UK Editor