A February 4 report from the British Medical Journal has raised disturbing questions about the ethics of the COVID-19 regime in the UK, a Western Democracy. In the case of a young man who lacks the capacity to make health decisions, a court ruled he “must be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, despite his parents’ fears that the vaccine could seriously harm or even kill him.” Known legally as “DC,” the 20-year-old man lives in a care home in England at which he is the sole unvaccinated resident. DC has “schizencephaly, microcephaly, cerebral palsy, curvature of the spine, dystonia, intermittent stridor, and pseudomonas of the lungs.” DC weighs as much as a small child and generally needs to be hospitalized several times a year for lung illness.

Judge Simon Burrows noted that DC’s “highly intelligent” parents, who don’t, in general, oppose vaccines, had a logical and rational basis for their objection to COVID-19 vaccination. The young man’s dad is a professional risk evaluator, and he did a massive amount of research on mRNA vaccines. He is particularly concerned about a history of blood clots in the family. Yet Borrows said that the risks of the vaccination did not outweigh the benefits. And the main “benefit” cited is not even a medical benefit: the court’s main justification for this action was that it would be a positive in DC’s life, as unvaccinated, “he was not allowed to attend outdoor events and had to be isolated in his room for 10 days after home visits.”

TrialSite suggests that such judiciary moves, encroaching on the lives of individual families and their preferences, represent an overreach of the British judiciary. Political fallout is expected.