The court had to decide whether the P should receive the Covid-19 vaccine and concluded that it was in her best interests to do so.
The P has a diagnosis of dementia and was diagnosed with schizophrenia around 20 years ago. She has lived in a care home in London since the end of March 2020. She was to be offered a Covid-19 vaccination on 11 January 2021 but her son objected to this, being deeply sceptical about the efficacy of the vaccine, the speed at which it was authorised, whether it has been adequately tested on the cohort to which his mother belongs, and, importantly, whether his mother's true wishes and feelings have been canvassed. He also queried whether the tests have properly incorporated issues relating to ethnicity.
The court concluded that it was in the P's best interests to receive the vaccine. While the P lacks the capacity to consent to receiving the vaccine, she has articulated a degree of trust in the views of the health professionals who care for her by saying to a doctor that she wanted "whatever is best for me". Moreover, her straightforward and uncomplicated approach resonates with the trust that she has placed in the medical profession in the course of her life, illustrated by her earlier reaction to vaccination.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Support the Hub
This site is free to access but if you find it useful then please consider a contribution by way of support for our work. Click here to contribute.
Sign up for our free email alert
We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
More from Bath Publishing