Hannah Jones has refused the heart transplant that could save her life. But is a 13-year-old too young to make that decision? Or is she the only person who can?
The following guidance is for PCTs, local authorities, hospitals and care homes to support them understand and fulfill their statutory obligations under the Mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards legislation.
The aim of this guideline is to inform health and social care professionals on how best to manage advance care planning (ACP) in clinical practice. At the core of current health and social care are efforts to maximise individuals’ autonomy, promote patient-centred care, offer choice and the right to decide one’s own treatment or care. This can be difficult to achieve when an individual has lost capacity – the ability to make their own, informed decision. ACP is one method of enhancing autonomy, not only where an individual has lost capacity, but also by focussing discussion on the individual’s values and preferences throughout the time they are in contact with health or social care professionals. Whilst ACP has been used for some time in North America, there has been relatively little experience in the use of ACP in the UK. This set of concise evidence-based guidelines has therefore been prepared to guide practitioners.
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.
The issue in this case is not uncommon. P is an adult who has an unresolved medical condition, in this case epilepsy. His primary carer, however well motivated, does not accept the diagnosis nor the treatment proposals. P may object to treatment (whether his own view or prompted by his carer). In order to determine what is in P's best interests, since he cannot decide for himself, it is necessary to observe him, and not to rely upon what is relayed about his condition by his carer. To that end, a period in hospital for assessment and treatment is necessary.
A fundamental aspect of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) is the statutory endorsement of a functional approach to capacity. In principle, this requires a separate assessment of capacity in respect of each decision to be made. Most capacity assessments take place at a non-judicial level, and, outside of day-to-day decisions, the most common assessors are likely to be healthcare professionals. This paper investigates the practical operation of the capacity assessment process at both judicial and non-judicial levels. It asks whether the process can deliver on the MCA's goal of preserving maximum decision-making freedom, while, at the same time, providing an appropriate degree of protection. It argues that assessors who are not legally trained encounter signific
Doctors were forced to allow a young woman to die as she had made a "living will" requesting no medical help if she attempted suicide. They would have risked breaking the law by treating Kerrie Wooltorton, 26, of Norwich, an inquest heard. Miss Wooltorton wrote her living will in September 2007, asking for no intervention if she tried to take her own life.
Following advance directives in emergencies throws up some complicated problems, as Stephen Bonner and colleagues found. We asked an emergency doctor, a medical defence adviser, and an ethicist what they would do in the circumstances
Sir Terry Pratchett has said he's ready to be a test case for assisted suicide "tribunals" which could give people legal permission to end their lives. The author, who has Alzheimer's, says he wants a tribunal set up to help those with incurable diseases end their lives with help from doctors. A poll for BBC One's Panorama suggests most people support assisted suicide for someone who is terminally ill.
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.