A CCG v AD (2021) EWCOP 47: Difference between revisions
m (Text replacement - "Summary=''(.*)''" to "Summary=$1") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|Sentence=Coronavirus vaccination | |Sentence=Coronavirus vaccination | ||
|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 to swiftly 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. | |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 to swiftly 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 | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 09:29, 10 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 to swiftly 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: