Vaccine hesitancy and the Court of Protection: who decides?
27 April 2021
Informed consent to medical treatment is at the heart of the vaccine debate. Consent is also at the centre of most of the cases that come before the Court of Protection. So now we have a very specific problem: what happens, if someone lacks capacity under the Mental Capacity Act, and their family for whatever reason objects to the Covid vaccine?
In the latest episode of Law Pod UK, Rosalind English talks to Amelia Walker of 1 Crown Office Row about three recent cases that came before the COP where the “protected person” (incapacitous under the Mental Capacity Act) was due to be vaccinated, but family members objected. Here are the citations to the cases discussed and the relevant statutes:
E (by her Accredited Legal Representative, Keith Clarke), Applicant v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (Respondent) and W (2nd Respondent) [2021] EWCOP 7
SD (Applicant) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (Respondent) [2021] EWCOP 14
NHS Tameside & Glossop CCG v CR (by his litigation friend CW) [2021] EWCOP 19
Mental Health Act
For more posts about the Covid vaccine, see here.
Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Audioboom, Player FM, ListenNotes, Podbean, iHeart, Radio Public, Deezer or wherever you listen to our podcasts.
Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.
This blog is run by 
Andrew, that’s just a long-winded way of saying, “I’m all right, Jack”. When the British government was murdering the disabled – pushing them into poverty and to suicide (www.calumslist.org) – no one cared; instead, the Tories got re-elected to do some more killing. Ain’t it a shame that many of the 65%+ oldies who voted Tory are now on the receiving end of that killing? Live by the sword, die by the sword!
Here are several more reason why no one sensible would take these experimental vaccines:
“These NHS Staff Were Told The Swine Flu Vaccine Was Safe, And Now They’re Suffering The Consequences”
https://www.buzzfeed.com/shaunlintern/these-nhs-staff-were-told-the-swine-flu-vaccine-was-safe
“Ministers lose fight to stop payouts over swine flu jab narcolepsy cases”
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/09/ministers-lose-fight-to-stop-payouts-in-swine-flu-jab-narcolepsy-cases
“Swine flu vaccine can trigger narcolepsy, UK government [FORCED TO CONCEDE]”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/19/swine-flu-vaccine-narcolepsy-uk
“Boy who said he developed narcolepsy after swine flu vaccine settles court case”:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/boy-who-said-he-developed-narcolepsy-after-swine-flu-vaccine-settles-court-case-1.4400182
Oh, Ye of *unquestioning* faith in the medical establishment. Firstly, I do agree that, from one set of data that I looked at, in the relatively short term, people who are already pretty healthy (ie, you have to be healthy to be chosen for the first clinical trials of a medical treatment – I’ve been a test patient on two) seem to have some protection from the severest clinical effects of Covid-19, regardless of whether the patient is subsequently diagnosed covid-19-positive or not based on somewhat spurious and unproven tests. So that does appear to represent a significant clinical benefit – in the short term at least, and for those who are already the healthiest among us. However, if you know anything about the history of medicine, it is capable of serious blunders – not just by individuals but by whole branches of medicine even – cardiac arrhythmia, for example. And even though when doctors are reminded, or even made aware for the first time, of previous medical blunders, their usual response is, “Ah, but we know more now”. However, that is based on the presupposition that the sole reason for medical blunders happening previously is that medical knowledge had not advanced enough. The reality is often that whole groups of doctors leapt to conclusions based on insufficient evidence, then either force-fitted the incoming data into their new model of reality, or rejected the data, for far too long, and rejected counter-evidence out of hand.
Just to remind you that all of the vaccines are regarded as experimental for the next couple of years, and that actual protection of people around you has not been demonstrated yet, to the best of my knowledge.
And it wouldn’t be the first time that fraudulent data was used to gain approval for a medical product. The woman who was the data gatherer for the original trials of AZT said on video subsequently, “I saw the most horrible abuses…. while AZT is on the market, people are being betrayed”. As almost all the subsequent evidence showed, even though doctors – as has happened before – ignored evidence that didn’t comport with their new beliefs.
I’ve been involved in several legal cases involving virology. Virology is a low-quality branch of medicine, using sub-standard meaning for terms like ‘isolation’ and ‘cloning’, precisely *because* people have unquestioning faith in it, and there is no effective external moderating influence that will keep the quality high. Medical journals can certainly not be trusted to maintain quality. For example, a few years ago a client of mine was given evidence that purported to show the drug medical professionals wanted her newborn child to have were safe. I saw numerous distortions and uncorrected errors in the paper, and wrote an analysis of it showing that the projected outcomes were actually the opposite of the effect claimed and in a potentially proscribed dose could cause serious brand damage. The professional pathologist read my analysis and declared it excellent without reservation.
I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, I haven’t had time, but *If* the majority of the people who are the subject of these cases are elderly, then according to some sources of information, old people are ‘dropping like flies’ after being vaccinated, possibly depending on which vaccination they’ve had. That should not be a huge surprise given that older people are much more susceptible to strokes at least.
George Santayana is credited with the statement, “Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. What I’ve learnt is that, ‘those who do not learn from medical blunders of the past are doomed to have the same mistakes repeated on themselves’. I suggest it’s too early to be sure there aren’t potentially serious long term adverse consequences, aside from blood clots.
Time for some common sense here. Vaccination against a highly infectious illness does not only protect the vaccinee if that is the word; it protects the people who come into contact with the vaccinee, and that’s especially important in the context of those living in residential care.
The interest of the community must prevail and that means the jab. It’s no different in principle from chlorinating the water and we should not let the tinfoil hat brigade block either process.