Judgment from the Vice President (following an ex tempore one) concerning the medical treatment of PH, who had been subject to physical restraint in order to take blood samples.
In the Vice President’s opening paragraph he relates that
“No application had been made to the Court as to whether this was in PH’s best interests. I described what had happened as corrosive of PH’s dignity. It transpired that those actions were contrary to the advice of the Health Board’s own highly experienced legal team. What was also deeply troubling was that at the time that this occurred, PH was represented by the Official Solicitor in proceedings before the Court of Protection. A report addressing issues of capacity, commissioned at the request of the Official Solicitor, appeared to have been entirely ignored by the then treating clinicians.”
However, he then goes onto set out that while PH is unable to eat and drink and has challenges communicating verbally, the evidence was that he had capacity to make decisions about his medical treatment. Though PH’s refusal to feed “is distressing to all who have got to know him, in whose ranks, I include myself…it is his decision.”. Therefore there was no further role for the court.
Read the judgment on Bailii
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