A judge has ruled that an 83 year-old dementia sufferer should have the Covid vaccine despite her son’s concerns. Her son was given Power of Attorney some years ago, and objected to her having the jab on the grounds that she might feel pain in her last moments if there were any side effects. He said she has “not got that long left anyway”. Cornwall Live has the story.
A Cornish judge has ruled that an elderly woman with dementia will be vaccinated, despite her son’s objections.
Judge Simon Carr, who is based in Truro, concluded that vaccination would be in the 83 year-old’s best interests, at an online hearing in the Court of Protection on Wednesday evening.
The specialist court hears issues relating to people who might lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves are considered.
The woman, whose identity or location cannot be revealed, is living in a care home and agreed to her son having power of attorney, and making decisions on her behalf, some time ago, the judge heard.
Her son argued that she should not have the coronavirus vaccine as she “had not got that long left anyway”.
He said she should not have to end her life in pain if there were side effects.
The case was brought to court after the woman’s GP thought she should be given the vaccine and asked the judge to consider the case.
The judge concluded that, because the pensioner had been vaccinated against the flu for nearly 20 years, she had no general objection to vaccines.
I have no hesitation in concluding that it is very much in (her) best interests to have the vaccine.
A similar case unfolded last month when a judge ordered that “it is in [the] best interests” of an elderly dementia sufferer living in a care home to receive the vaccine, despite her daughter saying that “my mother wouldn’t want it”.
The Cornwall Live report is worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I guess we’ll very soon be able to chalk up another death to “pre-existing morbidities” then.
The judge has got this wrong. It isn’t whether she would happily considered and taken a vaccine when competent, but whether she has a history is being in medical trials that would be relevant.
I hope that they escalate this immediately.
Agreed, but for different reasons. He has totally missed the point, that it is not “does she consent to injections?”, but “does she consent to THIS particular injection?” and considering her son exercising her consent on her behalf via power of attorney said “no” on her behalf that should have been her answer to that particular question. This sets a very dangerous precedent, similar to the one where the NHS trust took the parents of a young adult with special educational needs to court because they did not consent to the vaccine for him and were worried about harmful side effects and the judge overruled their wishes when they were trying to do their best to protect their son.
Assuming it was a health Power of Attorney, not financial, that should be the end of the story. Best interests decisions are for cases where there is no clear route for a decision, but this lady had already entrusted her son with that power. How is it that we are being asked to believe that the NHS is run off its feet, yet this GP has time to meddle in this woman’s life to this degree? Really concerning that a medical professional feels so emboldened – this vaccine is approved for ’emergency use’ – what was the emergency? GP practice falling short of their vaccine target perhaps? Or to save the blushes of the care home for whom vaccination would be more ‘convenient’.
If the power of attorney was established before the 2005 mental capacity act became law then there’s no distinction between health and finance, with the 2005 act these became separate.
I am failing to see the point of PoA then if decisions already made on behalf of the grantee can be overridden by judges who have no prior knowledge of the grantee’s thoughts and wishes.
I have recently found that General Powers of Attorney are fairly useless in law. They seem to ve viewed as having very short shelf lives and unless they can be resubstantiated by the signatories, lawyers tend to ignore them.
Enduring Powers of Attorney presumably such as the one in the case above are registered and are designed to overcome this ‘time’ issues. If a Judge has ruled to overturn this protection we, as the general public, have lost a lot of protection, and this is a very serious matter.
I have no objection to eating but I don’t expect to be force fed when I’m not hungry and particularly with something I might be allergic to.
This seems to be the way we are heading. The medical authorities seem to have the final say regardless. This sets such a dangerous precedent. What other medical procedures are we going to have to undergo because some doctor thinks it’s in our best interest?