|
Application by Trust concerning withdrawal of renal replacement therapy and other treatment RH had a rare liver disease and had been receiving treatment since an early age. An attempted liver transplant resulted in a bile leak that could not be stopped causing infection and organ failure. By February 2026 the clinicians thought RH was actively dying and no further treatment should be undertaken. The family disagreed with the move to palliative care and the Trust, following Townsend, continued with renal replacement therapy.
At [46] Mr Justice Peel finds the effects of the treatment mean that RH lacks capacity so he then assesses his best interests. While acknowledging RH's presentation has improved, this is because of the palliative RRT which will not lead to recovery and also that RH experiences discomfort [52]. However he decides at [53] the treatment is not yet intolerable so can continue but if there is a serious deterioration "then the clinicians are authorised not to treat with mechanical ventilation or vasopressors. If the RRT fails (e.g by reason of a blood pressure drop) or the line cannot be inserted, then the treatment can be withdrawn or withheld.These are ceilings of care which in my judgment are in RH's best interests. For the avoidance of doubt, my order is permissive; it does not prevent the clinicians from administering any treatment they think appropriate, but allows them lawfully to withdraw or withhold certain aspects of treatment." Read the judgment on Bailii Judgment concerning habitual residence and best interests where CK had lived in Spain but, now diagnosed with vascular dementia, is in a care home in England.
Application by the NHS Trust for a declaration that it was lawful and in AS's best interests to continue risk feeding but with no insertion of an NG tube/PEG and to take a palliative care approach.
Contact and residential orders made in respect of PX whose mother MX had made unsubstantiated claims of sexual and physical abuse against the father FX.
Application by HDEB's parents, JB and SB, to be appointed as joint and several deputies for personal welfare ("PWDs"). Application refused but permission to appeal was granted.
Reasons given in a case concerning capacity where JW, a 57 year old woman, may be coercively controlled by her husband, SW.
Judgment concerning whether the authority of appointed welfare deputies to decide whether XY should take part in particular leisure or social activities stretched to decisions about his internet and social media use.
Judgment concerning an application to replace a jointly instructed expert in proceedings relating to a wealthy individual.
Application by RW's attorney that the Board's management of RW when he was admitted to hospital was unlawful and for her costs in relation to the proceedings.
|
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Support the Hub
This site is free to access but if you find it useful then please consider a contribution by way of support for our work. Click here to contribute. Sign up for our free email alertWe do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
More from Bath PublishingBrowse |
RSS Feed
|
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com Manage your email preferences Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy |