Delay is inimical to P’s welfare: Guidance on clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration for PDoC patients

e of poor practice, and active resistance from some quarters, the court could also make clear that continued provision of medical treatment when it is not in someone’s best interests is an assault, and that clinicians will not be able to rely on the defence in s.5 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 – meaning that there is a risk to them and to their organisations of claims for damages.

“What is he saying to us?” The ‘voice’ of a hunger-striking man in a best interests decision about his medical treatment

By Gill Loomes-Quinn, 14th July 2021 During the afternoon of Tuesday 25th May 2021, I found myself back in the (virtual) Court of Protection for what was my first observation for several months. I was expecting to observe the latest hearing in Case Number COP 1275114 Re RD (Emma Heron and Olwen Cockell had written about an earlierContinue reading ““What is he saying to us?” The ‘voice’ of a hunger-striking man in a best interests decision about his medical treatment”

Dental Clearance with Post Intensive Care Syndrome: A Compassionate Decision by Hayden J

This hearing arose because a hospital trust has applied for welfare orders under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to permit them (i) to perform a full dental clearance on M in hospital under general anaesthetic, and (ii) to use a combination of chemical and physical restraint in order to manage M’s transfer to hospital.

Controlling and coercive behaviour: A hearing before Roberts J

By Celia Kitzinger, UPDATED 12th July 2021 to report on 3rd day of hearing (scroll down for new material) This blog was originally written as a briefing note to assist anyone wanting to observe the hearing over the course of the 3 days..  It was a hybrid hearing, and members of the public were able toContinue reading “Controlling and coercive behaviour: A hearing before Roberts J”

Resolving End-of-Life Treatment Conflicts: Comparing the COP in England to Analogous Mechanisms in Ontario, California, and Texas

By Thaddeus Mason Pope, 23rd June 2021 On Friday June 11 2021, I had the pleasure of watching The Honorable Mr. Justice Hayden deliver judgment in a Court of Protection case involving the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. I have been reading Court of Protection judgments for years and have even collected many on my website. But this was my firstContinue reading “Resolving End-of-Life Treatment Conflicts: Comparing the COP in England to Analogous Mechanisms in Ontario, California, and Texas”

Chaos in court and incompetent decision-making: Visual monitoring Part 2

By Claire Martin, 17th June 2021 This hearing, on 6th and 7th May 2021 before HHJ Howells at Wrexham County and Family Court (COP 13575520 Re: B) was the second hearing I’ve observed concerning “David” – a 39-year-old man with a severe learning disability, poorly controlled epilepsy and congenital cerebral palsy with right-sided hemiplegia.  At the previous hearing, onContinue reading “Chaos in court and incompetent decision-making: Visual monitoring Part 2”

Choice, human rights and childbirth in the Court of Protection

By Rebecca Brione, 26th May 2021 Over the last two years there have been at least eight cases heard in the Court of Protection concerning place and mode of birth for women who were deemed to lack capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The case reported last week is the second in a few months aboutContinue reading “Choice, human rights and childbirth in the Court of Protection”

Bringing Lucy home

Listening to this story of Lucy’s recent life, and her family’s efforts and persistence in caring for her, was quite shocking to hear – though not entirely surprising. There were so many things that were briefly mentioned, or alluded to in passing, that it was hard to take in all of the incidents and issues that have caused concern and rancour between the family and the Local Authority since Lucy left home. What was quite clear, though, was that things had become much worse over the past year or so, even before the pandemic. 

Delay in a Section 21A Challenge to the Capacity Requirement

One obviously concerning aspect of this case is that Mr B’s (possibly unlawful) deprivation of liberty has been going on for a long time. I’m not sure when he moved into the care home, or at what point he started objecting to living there, but proceedings challenging his detention began more than a year ago, in January 2020.