Hearing to determine whether the P should be given CANH against his wishes.
The P has suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and depression having been granted asylum after escaping from his native Palestine. The P believed his date of birth to be 29 December 1994 but after 3 age assessments the Home Office determined that it was 29 December 1994. For the P, the removal of his date of birth was perceived as a fundamental violation of his own rights and an assault on his identity. The P made an application to help at a Nightingale hospital but his application was rejected because he did not give his biometric date of birth. This led to the P feeling that his situation was hopeless and he started to refuse food and drink. This hearing was to determine what treatment plan should be undertaken, including the option of feeding with sedation without the P's consent.
The court ruled that any treatment should only be undertaken with the P's consent. Loss of capacity does not override respect for personal autonomy. Every effort should be made, with the parents at the centre of the process, to persuade, cajole and encourage the P to accept nutrition and hydration. When the P says no to CANH his refusal should be respected. No must mean no!
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
Comments are closed.
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 alert
We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
More from Bath Publishing
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
Manage your email preferences