hereA number of specialists involved in the man's care deemed a vaccine would be in his best interests.Concerns were raised by the man's father, who said the vaccine not been tested sufficiently, that it did not stop people contracting coronavirus, and said the long-term side effects on people with severe health issues were unknown.The man's mother and brother agreed.The judge said the man's father had outlined his concerns with 'conviction and great clarity'."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," the judge said in his ruling."His objections were not intrinsically illogical.
Read more on manchestereveningnews.co.uk