| Display title | An ICB v RN and TN [2022] EWCOP 41 |
| Default sort key | An ICB v RN and TN (2022) EWCOP 41 |
| Page length (in bytes) | 898 |
| Page ID | 14963 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 21:29, 16 March 2023 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 21:29, 16 March 2023 |
| Total number of edits | 1 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | RN had already contracted coronavirus and recovered, and his mother objected to administration of a coronavirus vaccination. The court decided that it would be in his best interests, primarily because of government guidance (which the doctors followed) and because the court should take the same approach to adults lacking capacity as to children, and partly because the "altruistic argument" that receiving the vaccine would help others "is a powerful factor that is likely to be a strong argument for the vaccine for people in a risk group such as RN". |
