Judge rules disabled man in Yorkshire care home should have Covid jab

A judge has ruled that a disabled man in North Yorkshire should be vaccinated against Covid-19, despite objections from his sister.

North Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group successfully applied to the Court of Protection, for an order that states it is in the man’s best interests to receive the jabs.
North Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group successfully applied to the Court of Protection, for an order that states it is in the man’s best interests to receive the jabs.

North Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group successfully applied to the Court of Protection, for an order that states it is in the man’s best interests to receive the jabs.

The man, cannot be named for legal reasons, is in his 60s but does not have the capacity to make the decision as he has severe learning disabilities.

Sign up to our daily newsletter

His family say he suffered brain damage after receiving the whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine as a child and he has been awarded compensation twice, under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 on the basis that he did suffer "vaccine damage".

According to a court ruling, his sister, who is a former nurse, strongly objected to him receiving the Covid-19 vaccine.

She claimed he could once again suffer “catastrophic consequences”, after receiving a jab and the use of “vitamins, minerals and pro-biotics can prevent the more harmful effects of Covid”.

Read More

Read More
Father jailed after 'ferocious' dog mauls his 12 day old son to death

But his other sister and his brother believe it is in his best interest to get vaccinated.

The man, who has lived at a care home for over 30 years, has received an annual flu vaccine without any issues since 2007.

The ruling stated he is obsese and has high blood pressure, but is “not considered to be in a highest risk category and has not been required to shield”.

A doctor told the court the chance of him catching Covid-19 and being admitted to hospital is one in 284. But if he is vaccinated, that will increase to one in 5,208.

The court also heard he does not understand social distancing and has missed out on trips to see football matches and the pantomime because of concerns about his safety

Mr Justice Poole said medical evidence shows the man, who is referred to as E, is “more vulnerable to the effects of Covid-19 due to his age, sex, learning disability, and weight”.

He also said there is “no reasonable evidence” to support his sister’s argument that the use of vitamins and minerals “would match the effectiveness of vaccination”.

The judge added: “The benefits to E of being vaccinated are considerable. It will afford him good protection against the more harmful effects of Covid-19, even death, should he contract the virus.

“It will enable him to be risk assessed as a vaccinated individual for activities which should open up to him the same opportunities to participate in the full range of activities that he has enjoyed in the past.

“Balancing all the circumstances I have come to the firm conclusion that it is in E's best interests to be administered the Covid-19 vaccine.”