View source for A Clinical Commissioning Group v FZ (2022) EWCOP 21

{{Case
|Date=2022/05/30
|NCN=[2022] EWCOP 21
|Essex issue=123
|Essex page=9
|Court=Court of Protection
|Judges=Simon Burrows
|Parties=A Clinical Commissioning Group, FZ, TZ
|Sentence=Coronavirus vaccination
|Summary=(1) The CCG's plan was for someone to befriend FZ over a number of visits, then for a vaccinator to attend and inject her swiftly before she was able to understand what was happening. No physical intervention and restraint was proposed and the court "would not entertain such an application were it to be made." (2) The court took the usual orthodox view as its starting point, by analogy with the High Court's approach to children: it is "very difficult to foresee a case in which a vaccination approved for use in children, including vaccinations against the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, would not be endorsed by the Court as being in the child's best interests absent a credible development in medical science or peer reviewed research evidence indicating significant concern for the efficacy and/or safety of the vaccine or a well evidenced medical contraindication specific to the subject child". (3) However, wider best interests considerations include how the vaccination would be administered. In this case, FZ would resist, and the plan would likely fail, at least on the first attempt, and result in trauma for her and her family: overall, it was not in her best interests.
|Subject=Coronavirus vaccination cases
|News=Yes
|RSS pubdate=2022/06/28 09:06:39 PM
}}