In the matter of B (Capacityl) [2023] JRC 008 (17 January 2023)

In the matter of B (Capacityl) [2023] JRC 008 (17 January 2023)

It is in the best interests of the First Respondent, who lacks capacity, to be vaccinated against Covid-19 and influenza, as the medical risks of not vaccinating significantly outweigh the minimal risks of vaccination, and vaccination will also remove lifestyle restrictions and improve quality of life. Parental objections, though sincerely held, are unsupported by reliable medical evidence and do not override the best interests assessment.

Citation
[2023] JRC 008
Parties
Applicant: Minister; Subject: First Respondent; Second Respondent: Father; Second Respondent: Mother
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
17 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Health and Welfare Application Under Article 27(1)(a) of the Capacity and Self Determination (jersey) Law 2016 / Judgment on Application for Authorisation of Vaccination
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Best Interests Decision, Vaccination of Incapacitated Persons, Delegation of Health and Welfare Decisions, Parental Objection to Medical Treatment
Mental Capacity Health Law Public Health Best Interests Decision Vaccination of Incapacitated Persons Delegation of Health and Welfare Decisions Parental Objection to Medical Treatment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister

Applicant

First Respondent

Subject

Father

Second Respondent

Mother

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Health and Welfare Application Under Article 27(1)(a) of the Capacity and Self Determination (jersey) Law 2016 / Judgment on Application for Authorisation of Vaccination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in the best interests of the First Respondent, who lacks capacity, to be vaccinated against Covid-19 and influenza despite parental objection
  2. 2 Whether the Minister should be authorised to procure vaccination notwithstanding the absence of consent from the delegate

Ratio Decidendi

It is in the best interests of the First Respondent, who lacks capacity, to be vaccinated against Covid-19 and influenza, as the medical risks of not vaccinating significantly outweigh the minimal risks of vaccination, and vaccination will also remove lifestyle restrictions and improve quality of life. Parental objections, though sincerely held, are unsupported by reliable medical evidence and do not override the best interests assessment.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Minister authorised to procure and administer Covid-19 and influenza vaccinations, including boosters, to the First Respondent in accordance with the vaccination care plan, notwithstanding the absence of consent from the delegate.
  • Vaccines may be administered together or separately as determined by medical advice, with a preference for Covid-19 vaccine first and influenza vaccine at least a month later, but ultimate decision left to medical professionals.