A judge has ruled that a man with severe learning difficulties should have one of the experimental Covid-19 vaccines despite his parents and brother objecting.

In a landmark ruling, which has now set a dangerous precedent for the future, Judge Jonathan Butler agreed with NHS Tameside and Glosspop Clinical Commissioning Group that vaccination was in the best interests of the “clinically vulnerable” male who is in his 30’s.

This was despite the man’s parents objecting and raising a number of concerns about potential side-effects. The man’s father used facts in their defence against the NHS and stated that the Covid vaccines have not been tested sufficiently and do not stop people contracting Covid-19, adding that long-term side effects on people with severe health issues were unknown – the man’s mother and brother both agreed.

The man’s father was correct in his defence as the vaccines are still in phase three trials until 2023 at the earliest and have only been authorised for emergency use in the United Kingdom, meaning the manufacturer is not liable for any injury that occurs due to their vaccine being administered.

The jabs have also not been proven to prevent the spread of Covid-19, instead allegedly providing protection to possibly protect against more serious disease. This has been confirmed by officials at the World Health Organization (WHO) have stated that it is not clear whether COVID-19 vaccines can prevent infection and transmission.

WHO chief scientist and paediatrician Soumya Swaminathan, MD said –

“We continue to wait for more results from the vaccine trials to really understand whether the vaccines, apart from preventing symptomatic disease and severe disease and deaths, whether they’re also going to reduce infection or prevent people from getting infected with the virus, then from passing it on or transmitting it to other people. I don’t believe we have the evidence on any of the vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on.”

The judge, who is based in Manchester, considered the case at a hearing in the Court of Protection, where issues relating to people who lack the mental capacity to make decisions are analysed.

He did not name the man in his written ruling, published on Friday.

A number of specialists involved in the man’s care all thought he should be vaccinated.

Judge Butler said the man’s father had outlined his concerns with “conviction and great clarity” adding that he had “no doubt whatsoever that his objections are founded on a love for his son and a wish to ensure that he comes to no harm.”

“His objections were not intrinsically illogical. They were certainly not deliberately obstructive.

“They were made upon the basis as to what he regards as being in the best interests of (his son).

“That concern for his son does him credit.”

But he said the family’s objections had “no clinical evidence base”.

He said the man was vulnerable and said there was “overwhelming objective evidence of the magnetic advantage of a vaccination”.

The judge said he had ruled that vaccination was in the man’s best interests, but had not authorised “physical intervention”.

Health authority bosses had said the vaccine would not be administered if any “form of physical intervention” was required.

A Tameside and Glossop Clinical Commissioning Group spokesperson said: “Our primary concern will always be the best clinical interests of our patients and we work closely with patients, families and clinicians and care providers to understand any concerns or judgements made about their care.”

Whatever happened to informed consent?