Many of our readers will remember the battle fought by Sarah to prevent her son Tom being forced to have an unwanted and unnecessary covid vaccine. Thankfully that battle was won but the war isn’t over. One expert fought and won a separate case but was forced to sign an NDA as part of the agreement in which the NHS backed down. Now, there is another similar case. 

It is an important case where the court is taking a position which implies 

1. the public is wrong, 
2. the family should be ignored and 
3. government guidance should be followed as if it is law. 

Adam (not his real name), a man in his thirties with moderate learning disabilities, loves spending time with his mother, Catherine (not her real name), and enjoys games and church. But for years, Adam has strongly resisted medical treatments, including vaccines, which have caused him significant distress. Despite his and his mother’s objections, the local Integrated Care Board (ICB) is pushing for a court order for him to receive another dose of covid vaccine this autumn. 

While the court ruled out the use of physical force, it allowed Adam to be sedated, by spiking his drink, to receive the vaccine. Catherine believes this would be a violation of her son’s autonomy and dignity. She urgently needs support to stop these interventions.

Why This Fight Matters

Catherine’s opposition is rooted in Adam’s fear of medical procedures and the fact that he has already recovered from covid with no serious issues. She argues that continuing to push more doses of the vaccine under sedation is not only unnecessary but unlawful, especially since other care boards, in similar cases, have decided against forced vaccination.

In June 2024, after guidance had already stopped recommending vaccines for people like Adam, the ICB proceeded to sedate and vaccinate him. When Catherine’s legal team objected, the ICB doubled down, hiring a King’s Counsel (KC) to defend their actions in court. A hearing expected in October could determine whether Adam will face further forced vaccinations.

The majority are rejecting vaccines

The ICB’s insistence on vaccinating Adam seems particularly out of step with the broader trend of vaccine refusal in similar groups.

Among the “clinically vulnerable,” the category which Adam falls into, only 16% chose to take the COVID booster last autumn, meaning 84% opted out. Even within the immunosuppressed group, just 20% received the booster. Frontline healthcare workers had an uptake rate of 45%, showing widespread reluctance among those who best understand the risks and benefits and face high exposure.

Here are the categories who were eligible last Autumn (2023) and the uptake for each.

Eligibility for booster Autumn 2023	Number eligible	Uptake number	Uptake %
Frontline healthcare workers	1,100,000	497,000	45
Clinically vulnerable (but not in other categories)	11,500,000	1,889,000	16
Immuno- suppressed	2,112,000	420,000	20
65+	10,468,000	8,000,000	76
Total	24,200,000	11,800,000	49

Despite this, Adam, who lacks the capacity to refuse, is being forced into a decision most of his peers have the autonomy to make for themselves.

For spring 2024, he did not meet the eligibility criteria at all, yet he was drugged and vaccinated. Only 30% of frontline healthcare workers took the spring 2024 booster.

For the next round, in autumn 2024, he is again eligible. 

Despite 84% of “clinically vulnerable” people rejecting the vaccine last year. Despite him having already had a dose this year. Despite the huge numbers of people of his age and risk that the JCVI would estimate would need to be vaccinated to prevent a hospitalisation (10,400) or death (152,600). The court is referring only to government guidelines to decide on Adam’s best interests.

Catherine’s Call for Help

This legal battle goes beyond just a vaccine—it’s about protecting Adam’s right to avoid distressing and harmful treatments. Catherine, represented by human rights barrister Paul Diamond, urgently needs support to challenge the ICB’s actions and stop further violations of Adam’s autonomy. The outcome of Adam’s case could set a precedent for others in similar situations.

Donations can be made through Crowd Justice.