This site explains how the law now allows people to make decisions to refuse treatments including those that sustain life. Many people want to achieve a natural and dignified death, this is one way to help achieve it. This is a free and non-profit NHS website. We suggest people enter the site using the relevent menu section (above). Many people benefit from looking at both sections.
More than 700,000 people in the UK currently suffer from dementia, and nearly 500,000 friends and family members act as carers for people with dementia. Our rapidly ageing population means that these numbers are likely to double in the next forty years. While we are getting to understand better the causes of the disease, and diagnostic and treatment options are improving, we are still a long way from prevention or cure. Meanwhile, these people and their families, healthcare staff and care workers face difficult ethical dilemmas on a day-to-day basis. An exploratory workshop was held in March 2007, and the Nuffield Council set up a Working Party in December 2007 to examine the ethical issues raised by dementia. Following a public consultation and meetings with stakeholders including people with dementia, carers, health professionals and other members of the public, a report with recommendations for policy makers was published on 1st October 2009.
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.
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.
The 30-year-old, known only as SB, could die without emergency treatment for aplastic anemia, a condition in which her bone marrow does not reproduce enough new blood cells. The Court of Protection has now ruled that doctors can restrain SB and force her to undergo the arduous but potentially life-saving treatment, which is administered through a vein in the heart and lasts for five days. SB has been detained under the Mental Health Act. Family Division judge Mrs Justice Hogg ruled that the patient did not have the capacity to make up her own mind over whether to undergo the treatment.
A high court judge in England has ordered that doctors can force a woman without the capacity to decide for herself to have lifesaving treatment for aplastic anaemia. Mrs Justice Hogg made the ruling in the Court of Protection after an unnamed NHS trust applied to the court with the backing of the Official Solicitor, who looks after the interests of those lacking capacity. The judge said the 30 year old woman, named only as SB, who is detained under the Mental Health Act, has a serious psychiatric disorder and lacks the capacity to decide for herself whether or not to have the potentially lifesaving treatment.
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.
25th July 2013: The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) made Advance Decisions to refuse treatment legally binding in statutory law in 2005, and Compassion in Dying has been providing free information on end of life and Advance Decision forms since 2010. A new study, which looked at in excess of 200 calls to Compassion in Dying, found that a major barrier to patients exercising choice was doctors’ failure to engage with patients about their Advance Decision and the lack of systems in place to record them. Two callers reported considering a ‘DNR tattoo’ as a way of addressing this problem. The study also found women (84% of callers) are more likely than men (16%) to make their wishes known at the end of life. Professor Sue Wilkinson, author of the report and Professor of Feminist and Health Studies in the Department of Social Sciences at Loughborough University said: “This study has led to a number of recommendations for Compassion in Dying, and more broadly for the integration of Adva...
Judge approves forced Caesarean for mentally-ill woman Doctors have been granted permission to perform an urgent Caesarean section on a mentally-ill woman with diabetes. High Court judge Mr Justice Hayden gave specialists at the Royal Free London NHS Trust approval after a five-hour hearing at the Court of Protection. He said the decision was "draconian" but necessary because the mother's life may be in danger. The woman, 32, who is 32 weeks pregnant, was deemed unable to make the decision over how to give birth. The ruling, late on Friday, came after doctors applied for permission to carry out the delivery in order that the patient's "unstable mental state" could be treated. A specialist from the trust told the Court of Protection in London, which specialises in issues relating to the sick and vulnerable, that their priority was "keeping this woman alive".