A CCG v DC (2022) EWCOP 2: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 21:59, 14 March 2023

Coronavirus vaccination (1) The judge followed the "official line" and on a fine balance authorised administration of the coronavirus vaccination and boosters to a young man against his parents' wishes - the main reason being "a positive effect on DC's enjoyment of life by allowing him to be more involved in the life of his care home and with his parents" - noting that he could see no reason for the court not to apply to adults under the MCA the same approach taken by the courts to children. (2) Other options were refused: consideration of treatment with ivermectin (as it was not an available option); further evidence to fine-tune the CCG's risk/benefit analysis (owing to the lateness of the application, urgency, and uncertainty about the proposal), and consideration of further evidence on vaccine risk (owing to the lateness of the application and to avoid an adjournment).

Essex

This case has been summarised on page 7 of 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 119, February 2022).

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

Coronavirus vaccination cases🔍

Date: 21 January 2022🔍

Court: Court of Protection🔍

Judicial history:

A CCG v DC [2022] EWCOP 20 (appeal)
A CCG v DC [2022] EWCOP 2

Judge(s):

Simon Burrows🔍

Parties:

A Clinical Commissioning Group🔍
DC🔍
MC🔍
AC🔍

Citation number(s):

[2022] EWCOP 2^B

What links here:

Published: 24/2/22 21:03

Cached: 2025-07-05 13:42:03

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 |Essex page=7
 |Court=Court of Protection
-|Judges=Burrows
+|Judges=Simon Burrows
-|Parties=A Clinical Commissioning Group
+|Parties=A Clinical Commissioning Group, DC, MC, AC
+|Judicial history=*[[A CCG v DC (2022) EWCOP 20]] (appeal)
+*[[A CCG v DC (2022) EWCOP 2]]
 |Sentence=Coronavirus vaccination
-|Summary=(1) The judge followed the "official line" and on a fine balance authorised administration of the coronavirus vaccination and boosters to a young man against his parents' wishes, noting that he could see no reason for the court not to apply to adults under the MCA the same approach taken by the courts to children. (2) Other options were refused: consideration of treatment with ivermectin (as it was not an available option); further evidence to fine-tune the CCG's risk/benefit analysis (owing to the lateness of the application, urgency, and uncertainty about the proposal), and consideration of further evidence on vaccine risk (owing to the lateness of the application and to avoid an adjournment).
+|Summary=(1) The judge followed the "official line" and on a fine balance authorised administration of the coronavirus vaccination and boosters to a young man against his parents' wishes - the main reason being "a positive effect on DC's enjoyment of life by allowing him to be more involved in the life of his care home and with his parents" - noting that he could see no reason for the court not to apply to adults under the MCA the same approach taken by the courts to children. (2) Other options were refused: consideration of treatment with ivermectin (as it was not an available option); further evidence to fine-tune the CCG's risk/benefit analysis (owing to the lateness of the application, urgency, and uncertainty about the proposal), and consideration of further evidence on vaccine risk (owing to the lateness of the application and to avoid an adjournment).
 |Subject=Coronavirus vaccination cases
 |News=Yes
 |RSS pubdate=2022/02/24 08:26:07 PM
 }}