More than 11,000 people were deprived of their liberty last year using controversial new legislation that critics have argued is “not fit for purpose”. New figures released by the Department of Health reveal how local authorities and hospitals are increasingly relying on so-called Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) orders to detain people for their own safety.
A cancer patient who has a phobia of hospitals should be forced to undergo a life-saving operation if necessary, a High Court judge has ruled. Sir Nicholas Wall, sitting at the Court of Protection, ruled doctors could forcibly sedate the 55-year-old woman - referred to as PS. PS lacked the capacity to make decisions about her health, he said. Doctors at her NHS Foundation trust had argued PS would die if her ovaries and fallopian tubes were not removed. Evidence presented to Sir Nicholas, head of the High Court Family Division, said PS was diagnosed with uterine cancer last year.
This is an application made by the NHS Foundation Trust in the Court of Protection for a raft of declarations in relation to a young man, M, who was born on 19th June 1990 and so approaches his 23rd birthday. M was tragically born with a congenital abnormality of the brain called holoprosencephaly ("HPE"). It is common ground that in the period of time since 2010 M's condition has significantly deteriorated. He is now seriously malnourished and, in the view of both the treating physicians and independent experts instructed for the purposes of this hearing, reaching the end of his life. The painful and difficult issues now to be faced by M's family, the medical team that have cared for him so diligently over many years, and ultimately this court, is to what extent should M be treated in Intensive Care or be given cardio-pulmonary resuscitation ("CPR") in the event that there is a further deterioration in his condition. There is no question of M having the capacity himself to make...
The man’s lawyer stressed the case was not covered by the shadow of eugenics The Court of Protection could make legal history this month if it sanctions the sterilisation of a man with learning difficulties who lacks the ability to give permission.
A lady has cancer of the uterus. She could be cured by a potentially life-saving operation. However, because of other co-morbidities and other factors there is a considerable risk that she could die during the operation or in the post-operative recovery period. She herself lacks the capacity to make an informed decision, but she denies that she has cancer at all and opposes and is resistant to the operation. The medical team at the hospital consider that she would benefit from the operation and would like to perform it. The lady's three adult sons all strongly desire that she should have the operation and feel that the potential benefit outweighs the risk. The Official Solicitor, who acts as her litigation friend, considers, in a phrase, that it is too risky. The question for the court is whether, balancing all the relevant factors, it is in her overall best interests to have the operation or not.
Doctors will be allowed forcibly to sedate the 55-year-old woman in her home and take her to hospital for surgery. She could be forced to remain on a ward afterwards. The case has sparked an intense ethical and legal debate. Experts questioned whether lawyers and doctors should be able to override the wishes of patients and whether force was ever justified in providing medical care.