s going to be, what would he have decided? He was not going to decide that on the basis of a SMART score.”
By Jenny Kitzinger, 30 July 2021 The hearing I attended at the Court of Protection on 15th July 2021 (Case No. 1375980T before Mr Justice Hayden) was unusual in that it was described by the judge as a “supplementary hearing”. I’d not come across this type of hearing before, so was interested in the format and processContinue reading “Life-sustaining treatment contrary to his best interests: Lessons from a supplementary hearing”
By Gill Loomes-Quinn, 29th April 2021 My OJCOP colleague, Celia Kitzinger, and our regular contributor, Claire Martin recently observed a challenging case before the Court of Protection concerning ‘ZA’ – a woman with Schizophrenia and diabetes. Proceedings followed an application by the NHS Trust from which ZA has been receiving treatment for severe infections andContinue reading “On being ‘that person’: A disabled perspective on ‘ZA’”
“If organisations like Christian Concern are willing to spend time and money on conducting their ‘pro-life’ campaigns via courtroom litigation, and can find experts willing to act for them, there may be very little the Court of Protection can do to prevent them.”
“The dispute about RS’s treatment spread well beyond his treating team and his family. It spilled out from the bedside to the courts and into the public domain and then back again through the legal system (including the Court of Protection, the Court of Appeal, and the European Court of Human Rights). There were many powerful forces at play, and a huge clash of religious and cultural values. The persuasive power of video was a crucial lightening rod in how the story played out.”
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.
The judge invited her mother to choose a pseudonym (for the published judgment) that her daughter might have liked. She is anonymised as “Lilia” – the name of her favourite teddy bear.
By Celia Kitzinger, 3rd March 2021 There was a positive outcome to the hearing before Mrs Justice Lieven on Wednesday 27th January 2021. After listening to evidence from the treating clinicians and an independent expert consultant in oncology, the Trust and the mother of “RB” (as he is called in the court documents) came to anContinue reading “A mother speaks out about the Court of Protection”
My experience of mentoring students and integrating a court hearing into the course I was teaching was time consuming but it was a rewarding teaching experience. Engaging with how this hearing unfolded in real time has helped my students to understand the complex interface between law, medicine and lived experience. This can only enhance their development as students, as future professionals, and as citizens and help to promote the principles of open justice.
“It wasn’t combative like you see on the TV. Instead there was a very clear statement from the judge that these were civil proceedings and were very different from a criminal case – there was no ‘prosecution’ and it should not be seen as ‘a fight'”