A CCG v AD (2021) EWCOP 47: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Case |Date=2021/05/07 |NCN=[2021] EWCOP 47 |Court=Court of Protection |Judges=Brown |Parties=A Clinical Commissioning Group, A CCG, AD, AC |Sentence=Coronavirus vaccination...") |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|Parties=A Clinical Commissioning Group, A CCG, AD, AC | |Parties=A Clinical Commissioning Group, A CCG, AD, AC | ||
|Sentence=Coronavirus vaccination | |Sentence=Coronavirus vaccination | ||
|Summary= | |Summary=The court decided that it was it was in AD's best interests to be administered two doses of the Oxford coronavirus vaccine: the plan was for a sedative to be given, not only to sedate but also to prevent memory formation, and for a nurse swiftly to enter the room, inject him, then leave, while AD was distracted by his care team. Any booster vaccination, or any care plan involving force, would have to be considered at a future court hearing. | ||
|Subject=Coronavirus cases | |Subject=Coronavirus vaccination cases | ||
|News=Yes | |News=Yes | ||
|RSS pubdate=2021/09/13 10:07:42 AM | |RSS pubdate=2021/09/13 10:07:42 AM | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 14:18, 11 January 2022
Coronavirus vaccination The court decided that it was it was in AD's best interests to be administered two doses of the Oxford coronavirus vaccine: the plan was for a sedative to be given, not only to sedate but also to prevent memory formation, and for a nurse swiftly to enter the room, inject him, then leave, while AD was distracted by his care team. Any booster vaccination, or any care plan involving force, would have to be considered at a future court hearing.
Essex search
This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: