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.
Tag Archives: Hayden J
Not quite there yet: My first three attempts to observe a Court of Protection hearing
The Judge then went on to say that as I had only requested access at 10.50pm the evening before, she had not had time to go through formalities. She then referred to Claire Martin, another public observer (and core member of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project) who was also observing the proceedings and requested that we ‘kindly leave’. So that was that. Abrupt as it was, I duly obliged, and felt slightly down beaten at this point.
“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.
The most complex Covid patient in the world: Planning for a re-hearing after a successful appeal
All this detailed planning – what needs to be provided by what deadline and by whom – is part of preparing for a full hearing, especially where (as here) matters are contested. Hearings like these feel relatively pedestrian: they lack the intrinsic interest we all feel about the ethically weighty decisions made in final hearings. But they are the essential scaffolding upon which those final hearings depend.
“Burdensome and futile” treatment and dignity compromised: Poor practice at a leading UK hospital
The RHN clearly failed to provide high-quality, patient centred care – and part of this Court of Protection judgment is dedicated to exploring why this happened and what lessons might be learned.
C-section and general anaesthesia against her wishes? Capacity and best interests
Mr Justice Hayden is well-known (and celebrated) for his robust defence of autonomy and self-determination. And yet in this instance I got the impression that, faced with a decision about a pregnant woman, his protective instincts had (temporarily) overwhelmed him. I am relieved that he adjourned the hearing rather than precipitously (in my view) declaring SM to lack capacity and making a premature decision about her best interests.
Capacity to refuse intensive care
Gaby Parker and Celia Kitzinger, 30th October 2021 A man in his 40s (PH) has bronchiectasis. Last night his oxygen levels became seriously low (79%) and doctors raised with him the possibility of transfer to the intensive care unit, or to high dependency care. He refused to go. He’s made it unambiguously clear that he’ll consent toContinue reading “Capacity to refuse intensive care”
Best interests in a contested end-of-life case: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v AH & Ors [2021] EWCOP 51
What Claire and I witnessed in the Court of Protection was a determined, serious, and lengthy attempt on the part of the judge to determine what AH would want, in the absence of any direct record to help him. Mr Justice Hayden tried very hard to find out what her wishes would be, and to respect them – giving effect to her autonomy and self-determination.
When an academic theory becomes reality: The applicability of section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 versus section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005
By Jennifer O’Neill, 3rd August 2021 On 27th July 2021 I observed a remote hearing (via Microsoft Teams) brought before Mr Justice Hayden in the Court of Protection: COP 1354439T Re: PH. Having observed my first remote hearing in the Court of Protection a few weeks earlier (Re AH COP 13783897), I was aware that when observing such hearings,Continue reading “When an academic theory becomes reality: The applicability of section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 versus section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005”
Court considers how to operate against patient’s will
By Daniel Cloake, 2nd August 2021 This report concerns a case (COP 12132507 In the Matter of “AB” ) before The Hon. Mr Justice Hayden sitting remotely on 20 July 2021. The subject matter of the hearing was presented like this in the Transparency Order: This application is listed for hearing at 10.30 am onContinue reading “Court considers how to operate against patient’s will”
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 