‘Tom’ was born with chromosomal abnormalities. He is non-verbal and has never achieved a mental age beyond 18 months, but with his mother’s love and care he has made it to 24 years old.
Physically, however, Tom is fit and survived Covid with a sniffle. Despite this, a Governmental health authority, an Integrated Care Board (ICB), has for two years continued to spend a small fortune on lawyers in the Court of Protection demanding, against his mother’s wishes that Tom be given the COVID-19 vaccine.
What is going on?
The Court of Protection is a creation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, an Act made with the intention of giving a voice to the vulnerable. It is a court where life and death decisions of medical treatment can be made and it is inhabited by a select group of judges and lawyers appointed by the court to advocate on behalf of the vulnerable individual.
Something is awry. There is widespread concern that in this little known or understood court, decisions are reflecting the influence of politics and facilitating Government interference in the private lives of families where Government and courts should have no business.
The fundamental issue is that while the court declares it will give significant weight to parents’ views, it is of the immovable view that once a child reaches 18 he or she becomes an ‘adult’ and has a right to autonomous decision making. To facilitate that autonomy, the judge will decide what medical treatment should be given. This will be not just where grief or extreme distress may cloud rational decision making, but for all medical decisions disputed before the Court.
It is the court, however, that is irrational. When a mother has made every decision in her son’s life since birth, the gift of autonomy for his 18th birthday is a bizarre and cruel concept of pure fiction.
Tom’s appointed lawyers have submitted that the court’s September 2022 order, declaring it was in Tom’s best interests to be vaccinated ‘‘as soon as possible”, must still be complied with and his mother threatened with jail if she obstructs. They argue that treatment must be whatever is recommended in the Green Book, Government guidance for health professionals. And they do so despite a specialist in Tom’s condition warning of particular risks to him because of his chromosomal abnormality.
Your read that right. Tom’s court-appointed lawyers argue that the reasonable treatment decisions of his mother and the warning of a specialist report must be dismissed and take second place to Government guidance, that Tom must risk the COVID-19 vaccine. Because Covid. Because safe and effective.
That may be their view, but they can no better ascertain Tom’s wishes than anyone. Their job is to represent their client’s interests, not the court’s, not anyone else’s, and not to insist that warnings of immediate harm be dismissed.
Tom’s lawyers also back the learned judge’s out of hand rejection (and description as “regressive”) of any argument that the family should continue to make health decisions for Tom after he reaches 18. As was put rhetorically to Sarah’s barrister: “There is no power vested in a parent of an adult child to take decisions about them. Would you like your father to be taking decisions about you?” If being progressive means pretending the court can gift autonomy to Tom, then we are off to hell in a hand cart.
Despite such remarks, at the latest hearing it was some relief for Tom’s mother that the judge decided that “the Covid landscape has changed” and there was now time to examine the specialist’s report.
Superfluous to that decision, having previously and pejoratively suggested Tom’s mother may be an ‘anti-vaxxer’, the judge also suggested that the GP (who had seen the specialist report) should have referred herself to the General Medical Council for her refusal to administer the COVID-19 vaccine to her patient and should have removed herself as his GP.
With respect, such remarks against this GP were unnecessary and illustrate very real pressure and threat from the courts to the independence and ethical practices of doctors. Someone took it upon himself to report these remarks to the GP’s own supervising ICB. She is now the subject of an investigation, facing the significant impact of personal strain of her professional career and livelihood being put at risk.
Even though it is extremely doubtful that any judge has the power to order a doctor to administer treatment contrary to his or her clinical assessment (as opposed to refrain from treatment), and even though this GP acted on a report that was not available to the court in 2022 when the court’s declaration was made, the process is the punishment.
We remain in sight of Thalidomide injuries, of the 2009 Pandemrix vaccine causing narcolepsy in children, and of the NHS allowing AIDS-infected blood to be used to treat patients. Prime Ministers have had to apologise for these. In the current Scottish Covid inquiry witnesses are describing the scandal of ascribing deaths to Covid that were due to lockdown policy and end of life protocols promoted above clinical assessment.
With what hubris do the courts think they or the Government know better than the loving parent?
They have no reason, nor permission, to be complacent that in relation to the COVID-19 vaccines, Government information might not be as flawed, even dishonest, as it has been for other pharmaceutical scandals.
The courts cannot be permitted to become de facto enforcers of Government policy. Families have rights as well as responsibilities.
Tom’s case returns to Court on July 4th and 5th. The judge has warned an order for Tom’s vaccination may again be made.
This is an important case for the rights of all families. Represented by leading human rights barrister Paul Diamond, the crowd fund to pay for her legal fees is here. Please donate what you can afford. In any event, please share Tom’s story widely. The principles at stake are universal.
Stephen Jackson is a Solicitor and Principal at Jackson Osborne, solicitors for Tom’s mother.
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.
It seems to me that the reason the Globalists are going to all that trouble to force one young man to have the clotshot is just part of the Depopulation Plan, like euthanasia.
“They argue that treatment must be whatever is recommended in the Green Book, Government guidance for health professionals.”
Recommended. Guidance.
What is it with these people?! Do they not understand the English language?!
About a year ago, my wife and I wanted to visit an open air thermal swimming baths in Penzance, along with our two children. But the website stated that children were prohibited. Thinking that this was probably some relic of the absurd COVID restrictions, I decided to phone ahead. The lady (apparently the manager) very officiously informed me that “children are unable to moderate their body temperatures in the same way as adults” and that they (the management of the baths) were “only adhering to guidance issued by British Swimming.”
When I pointed out that both of my children have each been enjoying waters of all temperatures almost since the day they were born (including thermal baths in France and Italy), she doubled down and told me I was behaving irresponsibly and that the guidance must be followed.
These are the people we’re up against, folks. It’s a brick wall.
These days we enjoy regular visits to Les Bains de St Thomas, where children are welcomed.
If only they were there in my youth when we were swimming in the rivers. The real dangers, as most summers show, is the undercurrent or whirlpools or eddy.
Exactly. Our two learned to swim in rivers and lakes. And they are therefore very well aware of such dangers.
“Cold Water Kills” signs are plastered everywhere in England. It’s terrible, especially when one considers the health benefits of regular dips in cold water.
Quite. My wife and I do a cold tub every day, swim in a local river when we can, and if the weather is warm, I have a cold shower instead. Our water is straight from the mains, no tank, so within a minute it’s cold, cold, cold…
Spot the rock ‘n roll reference there?
Guidance is an insidious, Orwellian term. It basically means you have to do as I say. They are rules created outside of the law. One more tool for the bureaucracy and busybodies in the world to try to rule over us.
I am not ashamed to say that I politely told the lady to eff off and hung up on her.
Salute M A k.
Yes, guidelines…
Medical practitioners are now expected to follow guidelines.
Medical practitioners are becoming agents of the state, as we saw with Covid.
The lady manager is only following orders.
It’s a brick wall we have to smash down.
So many jumped up individuals now interfering in people’s lives, telling us what to do.
For example mandating COVID-19 vaccination in Australia at the height of the madness.
Is this Misfeasance in Public Office? The Destruction of Voluntary Informed Consent for Vaccination.
Went to North Cornwall as kids on family holidays. Surfing on old wooden boards from the age of 4 or 5, way way before wet suits, and quite possibly wearing those horrible old woollen swimming trunks.
Sick of fucking jobsworths and endless regulations.
Yes. The arrrogant people of Govt in all Western Nations have declared war against the electorate and will not be peacably removed. They are arrogant because so far, they are locked in and immovable (in the US its called Deep State). .Not everyone but certainly most who look forward to the unaffordable pension largesse they bequeathed to themselves, from you. Only a worldwide revolution (hopefully bloodless) will remove them and put us back in charge and shrink govt to controllable levels. Who knows, it may also stop a few more World Wars.
You aren’t an autonomous person if a court – or anyone else – determines what medical treatment you must receive.
But clearly Tom is a pawn in a power battle. The state wants to assert it’s supremacy over the family. The battleground in this case is the “vulnerable”. In other cases it’s the “educational rights” of children when the state punishes parents for not sending them to school for state mandated indoctrination.
This, at heart, is the state wanting to stamp down hard on any suggestion that the family is not subordinate to the state.
I agree to an extent but you miss the fact that the Courts are trying to set and impose the Law. They know no Government will oppose them in doing so. Look what they did to Rwanda and Sunak.
It’s hard to find words that adequately describe the contempt in which the people responsible for this deserve.
I have bunged in a few quid.
I was curious so I read up on the firm handling the case – they seem like covid sceptics: Coronavirus – Jackson Osborne
As usual this is not just the State exceeding its so-called powers but also the judiciary which these days is always keen to overstep its remit.
Re:
Seems like this judge has an agenda…
It’s extraordinary the power being wielded by agents of the government, compelling people to submit to medical interventions on their demand.
I’m questioning this in Australia, where politicians and medical officers imposed coercive and mandatory COVID-19 vaccination, destroying voluntary informed consent for vaccination.
See my detailed article: Misfeasance in Public Office? The Destruction of Voluntary Informed Consent for Vaccination.
Also accessible via my substack: https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/misfeasance-in-public-office
This case is positively sickening!
I wonder who will have to provide 24/7 care for this young adult in the event of a serious side effect? Obviously it would fall on the shoulders of a loving and hard pressed and very distressed mother!
Perhaps since valid scientific arguments have clearly fallen on deaf ears the courts should be obliged to provide compensation adequate to cover the cost of an equivalent standard of care for the rest of his life in the event of ongoing vaccine damage. Obviously there would need to be additional compensation to cover the distress and harm caused by their deliberations and decisions too!
The financial and political arguments might be rather more persuasive!
This loving mother has undoubtedly saved the country millions in care costs throughout this child’s life. Perhaps the state would like to bear all financial and practical responsibility from now on!
As if in an attempt to normalize the process, this class of sub-humans is trying to set a precedent that they can invoke when justifying the mandatory administering of state sanctioned medication against all rational medical advice. This cannot be allowed to go ahead – not only for the sake of the individual involved, but for the principle of avoiding such a dangerous precedent being set.
There has been an insidious move by the Courts to be both the setters of Law and the Executioners of Law. We have had no Government in my lifetime prepared to contest this. Our unwritten constitution is clear:
The Monarch is Sovereign
Parliament uses that Sovereignty to debate and enact Law
The Courts follow Parliaments orders as to what the Law means
Nowhere does it allow the Courts to decide what Law is nor the rights and wrongs of said Law. The Courts can only weigh up, and of course the Lords has the Church to advise on the morality, the evidence in light of said Law.
This Judge is clearly stepping far beyond the remit of the Courts. Who will take the Court to Court if irreparable harm happens to this person who is essentially a child?
We cannot condone a Court which deliberately, and knowingly, for political purposes, ignores the facts.
Quite honestly I’d like to see Reform bring this case up and show, yet again, what the other parties cannot see and refuse to see. This country is a mess.
Our Police dance in the streets and kneel to terrorists. Our Courts are out of control. Parliament ignores the people it purports to represent. Our Churches closed their doors slightly after the hospitals slammed theirs.
It is impossible to trust any of our public services from water companies to the post office, from hospitals to parliament and the Courts are a joke.
Now, we are supposed to accept a mother does not know her own son and an expert does not know what they are doing because a Government book says so?
All points very well said and taken.
So when Covid (allegedly) was around, Tom and his mum weren’t a special case and got no special support. But now they want to inject him with the poison, suddenly they’re a special case.
These people are positively evil.