Application concerning whether it is in the best interests of X, a 50 year old woman with severe epilepsy, to have the covid vaccine.
The application was made in the face of the implacable opposition of X’s family, in particular that of Y, X’s sister, who is heavily involved in her care. Y argued that X had tested positive for antibodies and so had natural immunity.
In this judgment, HHJ Peter Gregory first confirms that X lacks capacity to decide on the issue. He then concludes that it is in the best interests of X to be vaccinated, reminding himself at  that despite the “impressive body of material” collated by Y as indicative of the ongoing debate he is
“mindful of the observations of Hayden J in the SD case - this court’s function is not to arbitrate medical controversy, or provide a forum for ventilating speculative theories, but rather to evaluate X’s situation in the light of public health guidelines and peer reviewed research.”
He also notes that there was limited evidence on what X’s wishes and feelings might be.
Read 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