| Display title | Re E (Vaccine): LB Hammersmith and Fulham v W [2021] EWCOP 7 |
| Default sort key | Re E (Vaccine): LB Hammersmith and Fulham v W (2021) EWCOP 7 |
| Page length (in bytes) | 864 |
| Page ID | 11282 |
| 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 | 22:32, 29 January 2021 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 09:28, 10 January 2022 |
| Total number of edits | 4 |
| 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. | Mrs E's adult son objected to her receiving a coronavirus vaccine. The Court of Protection decided that it would be in her best interests, having regard to factors including the following: (a) when she had capacity she had received the swine flu and influenza vaccinations; (b) she currently wanted "whatever is best for me"; (c) she was at risk of death from coronavirus because she was in her 80s, suffered from diabetes, lived in a care home which recently had coronavirus, and found social distancing difficult to understand; the vaccine would reduce the risk of death. |
