Application concerning medical treatment for EUP, a woman in her eighties who has suffered a series of strokes.
EUP had been an active carer for various members of her family, including her husband who died with dementia. She was admitted to hospital in October 2023 after a stroke which left her with dysphagia. She was readmitted on 28th October, one day after discharge following a fall, and thereafter suffered several more strokes and progressive decline. By mid-December she was unable to receive nutrition but te family, in particular GUP, her youngest son, did not fully back a move to palliative care.
Hayden J declares that EUP lacks capacity but notes the honesty of GUP and his sister HUP in their assertions GUP opens her eyes and GUP's assessment of the choice between hydration and nutrition. However, after reviewing the relevant law and the medical evidence, the judge comes 'to the clear conclusion that neither provision of nutrition nor hydration is in EUP’s best interests' partly because of the medical evidence that, given her condition, she would not experience pain or starvation. He also makes some comments [47-50] agreeing with the Official Solicitor that GUP should not have had to bring the application himself; it was for the trust to do so promptly following the judge's own guidance, as Vice President, issued at EWCOP  2.
Read the full judgment on the National Archive.
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