IN THE MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005
IN THE MATTER OF NZ
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF PROTECTION
____________________
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF LEICESTER NHS TRUST |
Applicant |
|
- and - |
||
NZ (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) - and - MA - and - RZ |
1st Respondent 2nd Respondent 3rd Respondent |
____________________
Miss Debra Powell QC (instructed by NZ's litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) for the 1st Respondent
Mr Karim QC (instructed by Enoch Evans LLP) for the 2nd and 3rd Respondent
Hearing date: 23rd February 2021
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Hayden :
Factual background
"….the focus is on whether it is in the patient's best interests to give the treatment, rather than on whether it is in his best interests to withhold or withdraw it. If the treatment is not in his best interests, the court will not be able to give its consent on his behalf and it will follow that it will be lawful to withhold or withdraw it. Indeed, it will follow that it will not be lawful to give it. It also follows that (provided of course that they have acted reasonably and without negligence) the clinical team will not be in breach of any duty towards the patient if they withhold or withdraw it."
"The most that can be said, therefore, is that in considering the best interests of this particular patient at this particular time, decision-makers must look at his welfare in the widest sense, not just medical but social and psychological; they must consider the nature of the medical treatment in question, what it involves and its prospects of success; they must consider what the outcome of that treatment for the patient is likely to be; they must try and put themselves in the place of the individual patient and ask what his attitude to the treatment is or would be likely to be; and they must consult others who are looking after him or interested in his welfare, in particular for their view of what his attitude would be."