COVID-19 vaccination with sedation: Instructing an expert

By Anna (with Celia Kitzinger), 10th August 2022 This is one of a long series of hearings about COVID-19 vaccination in which family members argue against vaccinating P but the judge makes a decision to vaccinate.   This hearing is a bit different from the others because the judge already made a decision that it was inContinue reading “COVID-19 vaccination with sedation: Instructing an expert”

A response to ‘The politics of the pandemic…’: COVID-vaccination of a disabled man

Let me be clear: I also do not know where the evidence points, because the evidence is not reliably available to examine. I do not know this because the supremacy of evidence-based medicine has been lost, which is personally devastating, as I wonder what will happen to evidence, debate, scientific method and freedom to explore uncertainty. 

Cross-examining a GP in a COVID-vaccination hearing

By Celia Kitzinger, 4th February 2022 Editorial note: The judgment is published here: A CCG v. DC & MC & AC [2022] EWCOP 2. The parents subsequently appealed the decision, and the appeal was heard by Hayden J MC & Anor v A CCG & Anor [2022] EWCOP 20. (See postscript to this blog forContinue reading “Cross-examining a GP in a COVID-vaccination hearing”

“Non-mainstream” treatments and CPR for a COVID-19 patient in intensive care

Counsel asked whether, if the court were of the view that CPR was in AB’s best interests, the treating team would then be willing to administer CPR.  This question was presumably designed to address a lack of clarity (quite common, in my experience, in Court of Protection cases) as to whether a proposed treatment is actually an available option for the court to consider.  The court cannot order doctors to give futile treatments – and CPR had been so described by Dr G.  

On not allowing the strong views of family members to prevail: A COVID-19 hearing

“Strongly held views by well-meaning and concerned family members should be taken into account but never permitted to prevail nor allowed to create avoidable delay. To do so would be to expose the vulnerable to the levels of risk I have identified, in the face of what remains an insidious and highly dangerous pandemic virus“ (Hayden J §26, SD v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2021] EWCOP 14)

The politics of the pandemic in the Court of Protection

Fears about government infringement of fundamental freedoms via compulsory vaccinations and vaccine passports has also fuelled public unrest internationally.Critics point to the weaponizing of fear to coerce population-wide vaccination and to the use of coercive psychological power to pit those who comply with mask-wearing against those who do not, and the vaccinated against the unvaccinated.

Disputes about COVID vaccination should be rapidly referred to the Court

“at First Avenue House – and I’ve checked with the senior judge – if an application comes in concerning a dispute about vaccination, one of our technical experts will deal with it, and it will be referred to a judge quickly.  The arrangements in the regional hub courts are similar – the court staff are alert to the need to progress vaccination applications quickly” (DJ Mullins)

Covid vaccination and a Christmas visit

Her mother very badly wants PH to come home for Christmas. She described how she and her daughter “love each other dearly” and “have joy and pleasure in the time we spend together”. Her daughter she said, “loves Christmas decorations and a tree” – and visible on screen, in her home behind her, was a decorated tree with multi-coloured lights.  

Naming a putative ‘expert’ in a COVID vaccination case: A letter to the judge

Videos posted by Dr Rogers online include assertions that masks are ineffective and that it is not “a good thing to do” to have a vaccine unless you are very elderly or vulnerable. 

Covid vaccination contrary to parents’ wishes

As the hearing ended, JS’s father put a comforting arm around JS’s mother. They both looked upset and anxious.  “We just hope your decision brings benefit to our son, rather than more harm”, said his mother.  “Mrs S, so do I”, said the judge: “Nobody has a working crystal ball, but I firmly believe it’s the decision that’s best for JS”.