By Jenny Kitzinger, 23rd June 2021 Hearings in the Court of Protection often bring crucial issues into sharp relief in a vivid, poignant and intellectually rigorous way. This was certainly so in the hearing I observed last week: Case No. 1375980T on 10 June 2021. It concerned GU, a 70-year-old man who sustained a severe anoxic brain injury in AprilContinue reading “Clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration: Decisions that cannot be ignored or delayed”
I joined the hearing expecting to come out of it with an increased understanding and experience of the law in this area, which would complement my studies. However, to my surprise, I left with an increased personal awareness of the importance discussing these often ‘taboo’ and topical subjects.
By Jenny Kitzinger, 16th December 2020 The hearing I attended on Wednesday 9th December 2020 (Case: 13382192 before District Judge Tindal), was about Mr G, an individual in his early 60s with frontal lobe disorder, diabetes and other medical issues. He wants to leave the acquired brain injury [ABI] care centre that he originally entered almost aContinue reading “Unseemly turf wars and uncoordinated care”
The intention of the transparency order is to protect the person’s privacy and this is what many people who become “P”s in the Court of Protection want (or would have wanted). For others, though, their Article 8 right to privacy may be outweighed by the competing interest of their Article 10 to right to freedom of speech and open scrutiny of the circumstances in which they have been placed.
Editor’s note: This is a report of a later hearing in the same case as the one covered in a previous blog here. By Lucy Williams, 29 October 2020 I am studying a module on Health Care Law at the University of York. We explore how decision-making capacity is determined on the basis of the Mental Capacity ActContinue reading “From black letter law to real-life decision making”