Application by the Hospital Trust that it was in the P's best interests to use all reasonable and proportionate measures, including physical restraint, to administer insulin to him. The court made the order sought.

The P suffers from type 1 diabetes and at the time of the application was an inpatient at the hospital following a deterioration in his physical health arising from his diagnosis. At this time the P was non-compliant with his medication regime which involved regular daily insulin injections to manage his condition. The application was made to be able to restrain the P if necessary, otherwise without medication he would die.
​
The court held that there was reason to believe that the P lacked capacity in relation to the issues concerning his treatment and considered that it was in his best interests that he be treated in accordance with the plan that has been laid out  by the Trust. The court was also satisfied that it was necessary and proportionate, and in the P's best interests to make the order that reasonable restraint can be used in order to administer treatment.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

​Declaration regarding capacity and orders for serious medical treatment relating to the P, a woman who was in the advanced stages of her pregnancy, were made.

Application by the Trust for permission to amputate the P's leg was granted.

The court had to decide whether the assessment of capacity to make decisions about diabetic management is one macro-decision which encompasses all of the many micro-decisions that the P is required to make when managing her diabetes, or, whether the P's capacity should be assessed in respect of each micro-decision or group of micro-decisions.

The P is a 64-year-old woman with a personality disorder with components of different types and has an emotionally unstable paranoid histrionic and dependant personality disorder. She also suffers from a number of physical health conditions, including hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and unstable diabetes, which has led for instance to her having a below-the-knee amputation. Generally, she is compliant in the administration of the insulin, but not compliant in relation to other forms of medication. The management of her healthcare has been increasingly very difficult. Over four days in June 2018, Cohen J heard several applications concerning the P, concerning her capacity to make decisions about her residence and care. There are occasions when the P has the capacity to make micro-decisions in respect of her diabetes and occasions when she does not, i.e. that her capacity fluctuates. This hearing was to determine whether, when deciding if the P has the capacity to manage her diabetes, this is to be considered as one macro-decision, a series of micro-decisions which need to be made on a regular ongoing basis, or as a group of decisions.

The court approached the matter on the basis of the experts' conclusions, logically, legally and practically, and concluded that it was a macro-decision, and the P lacked capacity to take the macro-decision. The issue of fluctuating capacity, therefore, simply did not arise.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

Declarations made that it was in the P's best interests for ​the insertion of a tracheostomy and associated treatment at the direction of the treating team.

Declaration that the P, who was pregnant, should have a termination was set aside.

​Application by NHS Trust for the court to make an anticipatory and contingent declaration in the event that the pregnant P became incapacitated. The application was granted.

Application by an NHS Trust for an order in respect of a 24 year old pregnant woman who the Trust say lacks capacity and in whose best interests it is said to have a termination of pregnancy.

Application brought by an NHS Trust for declarations whether it is in JP's best interests to: i) deliver her baby via a Caesarean section under general anaesthetic; ii) to be transferred to hospital from her home in accordance with the transfer plan; and iii) not inform her of the outcome of these proceedings.

Judgment concerning whether or not it is in the best interests that intubation should continue or should not continue to be provided.