Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
Manchester Evening News
Manchester Evening News
National
Andrew Bardsley

Judge rules man with severe learning difficulties should be given coronavirus vaccine

A judge has ruled that a man with severe learning difficulties should be given a coronavirus vaccine, after his family had objected.

The NHS Tameside and Glossop Clinical Commissioning Group, which is responsible for the man's treatment, said that being given a vaccine would be in his best interests.

But the man's family said they did not want him to be given a vaccine, citing concerns about potential side effects.

The unnamed man, in his 30s, was described as being 'clinically vulnerable' and in a 'priority group' to receive a vaccine.

Following a hearing of the Court of Protection, where issues relating to people who lack the mental capacity to make decisions are analysed, Manchester based Judge Jonathan Butler ruled the man should be given a vaccine.

A number of specialists involved in the man's care deemed a vaccine would be in his best interests.

Concerns were raised by the man's father, who said the vaccine not been tested sufficiently, that it did not stop people contracting coronavirus, and said the long-term side effects on people with severe health issues were unknown.

The man's mother and brother agreed.

The judge said the man's father had outlined his concerns with 'conviction and great clarity'.

"I have no doubt whatsoever that his objections are founded on a love for (his son) and a wish to ensure that he comes to no harm," the judge said in his ruling.

"His objections were not intrinsically illogical. They were certainly not deliberately obstructive.

"They were made upon the basis as to what he regards as being in the best interests of (his son).

"That concern for his son does him credit."

But he said the family's objections had 'no clinical evidence base'.

He said the man was vulnerable and said there was 'overwhelming objective evidence of the magnetic advantage of a vaccination'.

The judge said he had ruled that vaccination was in the man's best interests, but had not authorised 'physical intervention'.

Health authority bosses had said the vaccine would not be administered if any 'form of physical intervention' was required.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.