A home not a hospital: Service delivery goals for PH

reflect on how having some level of oversight from a professional who is somewhat independent, and who can initiate communication with separate bodies (i.e. care home management, local authority, health commissioning) can be pivotal in ‘making things happen’ for P, that wouldn’t have necessarily happened without such intervention.

A ‘secret’ hearing on life-sustaining treatment

The Health Board was seeking a declaration from the court either [1] that PH does have capacity to refuse nutrition and that his wishes not to continue to be fed should continue to be respected, even if this means his death; OR [2] that PH lacks capacity to refuse nutrition and that it is not in his best interests to attempt to feed him nutrition against his wishes and so he should be allowed to die.

Cross-examining a GP in a COVID-vaccination hearing

By Celia Kitzinger, 4th February 2022 Editorial note: The judgment is published here: A CCG v. DC & MC & AC [2022] EWCOP 2. The parents subsequently appealed the decision, and the appeal was heard by Hayden J MC & Anor v A CCG & Anor [2022] EWCOP 20. (See postscript to this blog forContinue reading “Cross-examining a GP in a COVID-vaccination hearing”

Capacity and elective caesarean

By Samantha Halliday, 26 January 2022 I have written extensively about court-authorised obstetric intervention[i] but I’ve always relied upon reported decisions.  I am acutely aware that as Rosie Harding has commented: “When only the judgment is available for academic scrutiny, we cannot be clear as to the ways that the various submissions were framed”.   That being the case,Continue reading “Capacity and elective caesarean”

“Non-mainstream” treatments and CPR for a COVID-19 patient in intensive care

Counsel asked whether, if the court were of the view that CPR was in AB’s best interests, the treating team would then be willing to administer CPR.  This question was presumably designed to address a lack of clarity (quite common, in my experience, in Court of Protection cases) as to whether a proposed treatment is actually an available option for the court to consider.  The court cannot order doctors to give futile treatments – and CPR had been so described by Dr G.  

On not allowing the strong views of family members to prevail: A COVID-19 hearing

“Strongly held views by well-meaning and concerned family members should be taken into account but never permitted to prevail nor allowed to create avoidable delay. To do so would be to expose the vulnerable to the levels of risk I have identified, in the face of what remains an insidious and highly dangerous pandemic virus“ (Hayden J §26, SD v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2021] EWCOP 14)

Untenable and unsafe: A trial of living in the community breaks down

So, Mr G will return to the safety of residential care, where he will no doubt continue to rage against his incarceration, but there will be a suitable infrastructure to help him manage his precarious health condition. The question one is left with, of course, is, as Munby J famously said: “What good is making someone safer if it merely makes them miserable?”

Abuse and coercive control? A fact-finding hearing and exoneration

allegations against Miss F. They included allegations of physical and financial abuse and coercive control, and an allegation that she’d deliberately administered an insulin overdose when she visited him in hospital. There were also reports of her being obstructive and hostile to healthcare professionals trying to support Mr G.

The politics of the pandemic in the Court of Protection

Fears about government infringement of fundamental freedoms via compulsory vaccinations and vaccine passports has also fuelled public unrest internationally.Critics point to the weaponizing of fear to coerce population-wide vaccination and to the use of coercive psychological power to pit those who comply with mask-wearing against those who do not, and the vaccinated against the unvaccinated.

Continuing search for a placement – 5 months on

The local authority had, he said, “… invited the Court to escalate the matter to the Department of Education and the Children’s Commissioner.  This case is reflective of a national crisis.  Support from central government is needed.  As far as I’m aware, neither were informed or provided with information.  It seems to me that now that should happen”.