Thread by @KitzingerCelia

This morning I observed this hearing before Judge Rebecca Brown in the Court of Protection concerning whether it was in the best interests of a man in his 30s ("AD") to be vaccinated against Covid-19. #NotSecretCourt

https://twitter.com/OpenJusticeCoP/status/1390226725175443456

The case was brought by CCG who believe C-19 vaccination to be in AD's best interests.

AD was represented by OS who was of the same view.

His mother opposes vaccination.

AD has Down's syndrome, learning disability + autism. He's "resistant to all healthcare interventions".

Multi-disciplinary team of professionals has drawn up a plan. He'll be vaccinated at home.Encouraged to wear short sleeved top that morning + covertly sedated via his morning drink. While "distracted by his favourite activities", nurse will enter + jab him without any engagement.

No physical force will be used. If plan doesn't work without force, case must return to court. (Senior Learning Disability Nurse thinks that if force were to be required that could actually tip the best interests balance against vax.)

Only Mother opposes plan. Case was adjourned last week to give her time to find legal representation but she hasn't managed to do this and appears in person. Altho' hearing is video link, she is on phone. #LitigantInPerson #NotSecretCourt

AD's mother says that people suffer serious adverse reactions to covid vaccination - including death. "It's very dangerous". And more so for her son who is "very vulnerable". She mentions blood-clotting, neurological damage, organ failure.

She says autopsies in Russia have shown that what people are dying of is NOT Covid-19 but a bacterial infection that can be cured with antibiotics, anti-inflammatories and aspirin.

reuters.com/article/factch…

She says that contact with someone who has been vaccinated is dangerous for women's reproductive health.

eu.usatoday.com/story/news/fac…

She says the risk of Covid-19 now in England is very low ("nearly zero"), so running the risk of vax side effects is unnecessary. "He’s a very healthy young man, he hardly even gets a cold. I believe he has antibodies in his body and natural immunity."

And she's very concerned that he would refuse treatment for side effects of vax. "He would push people away, get angry".

CCG says that plan for vax has been drawn up by MDT including care manager who's known AD for 2 years, his IMCA, safeguarding manager, GP. They don't recognise the risks Mother raises which "appear to be based on well known misinformation from the internet”.

CCG says risk factors for AD are LD diagnosis, Down's syndrome, ethnic background + significantly overweight. He's also very friendly, hugs carers, doesn't understand social distancing.

AD should have access to vax because benefits far outweigh evidenced risks recognised by CCG

OS supports care plan for vax as evidence on risks to AD from Covid-19 is "overwhelming"

"Much of [Mother's] concern about the vaccine is a product of misinformation, speculation and conspiracy theories unfortunately."

The OS and CCG disagree about whether court should authorise a "booster" vaccine some months later, as well as 2 shots of the AZ vaccine. CCG says why not, if all goes according to plan + give him the best possible protection.

OS says that apart from speculative conspiracy theories, there are "genuine + legitimate" concerns about vaccine.

He says" I don’t know for instance if I would have a booster in 6 or 7 months time. That’s not currently in the public domain for debate."

"Why should somebody who lacks capacity have that decision [for a booster jab] made for them now, when other people will make it at the time. There mustn’t be over-reach by the court." (Official Solicitor)

Mother's view: "We do not know what the future holds. Best to have a court hearing so that we clarify if there are any more dangers from the vaccination in the future which no-one can predict."

HHJ Brown gave oral judgment.

She thanked advocates for their eloquence and Mother for "her heartfelt concerns which I entirely respect and understand".

She was "impressed" by the care plan - designed to "mitigate + if possible eliminate distress to AD of receiving vax."

Judge accepted that AD lacks capacity to consent to vax.

Said it's in AD's best interests to receive both shots of AZ vax in line with care plan, with no force being used.

She did not agree to booster, accepting submission that "it could be going into realm of overreach".

Mother sounds distressed

Asks to speak to vax nurse "to reassure me that force will not be used on my son"

Judge: "The nurse that administers must not use force and that’s the end of it."

Mother asks if AD can come+live with her
Judge says that's a matter for another hearing.

And so the hearing ends, with the judge wishing Mother and her son "the very best".

I think the judgment will be published + will link to it in next tweet if it is.

We (@OpenJusticeCoP) have also published three blog posts based on our observations of vaccination cases in the Court of Protection + links to published judgments.

Here are links to all three.

1. Covid vaccination in the Court of Protection by Bonnie Venter @TheOrganOgress

2. Who is to blame if the COVID-19 vaccination causes harm to P? by Bridget Penhale @bpenhale

openjusticecourtofprotection.org/2021/02/16/who…

3. Why covid vaccination is NOT in this care home resident’s best interests by Astral Heaven @AstiHeaven

openjusticecourtofprotection.org/2021/05/04/why…