A man with severe learning difficulties should be given a COVID-19 vaccine despite his parents’ concerns, a judge has ruled.
The father of the man in his 30s objected to potential side effects he could suffer as a result of taking a coronavirus jab, claiming they had not been tested enough and did not prevent people from catching the virus.
Both his mother and brother agreed with this, the BBC reported.
Specialists form NHS Tameside and Glossop Clinical Commissioning Group disagreed and were keen for the man to have the vaccine.
He is eligible for the jab as part of a priority group because he is classed as “clinically vulnerable”.
Following a hearing at the court of protection on Friday, Judge Jonathan Butler said the man should be given the jab despite his parents' objections.
The judge’s written ruling, which did not name the man, stated they had “no clinical evidence base” for their concerns.
Judge Butler, who is based in Manchester, said: "I have 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."
The judge added there was “overwhelming objective evidence of the magnetic advantage of a vaccination” for the vulnerable man.
He did not order any "physical intervention", and the health authority has said a vaccine will not be given to the man if it required any "form of physical intervention".
Watch: Do coronavirus vaccines affect fertility?