Polly and AGNI: A family reflection on deprivation of liberty

Polly has lived her life in the context of both the ‘ordinary usage’ of ‘liberty’ with its powerful social and political symbolism, and also the more peculiar legal definitions created by judicial …

openjusticecourtofprotection.org

Court of Appeal clarifies law on personal welfare deputyships | Rook Irwin Sweeney - Public Law. Human Rights.

rookirwinsweeney.co.uk

When Breath Becomes Air by Paul Kalanithi | Hay Festival Book Club APRIL 2026

YouTube video by Hay Festival

youtube.com

“Let me talk about my partner’s death”– Court of Protection told

By Daniel Cloake, 23rd September 2025 Editorial note: Judgment in this case has now been published: Re Carl Gardner, Deceased (Duration of Transparency Order). This blog is reprinted, with permissi…

openjusticecourtofprotection.org

Life and death

Who should decide to end life-sustaining treatment? And on what grounds?

rozenberg.substack.com

Withdrawing clinically inappropriate life-sustaining treatment – the latest Strasbourg word

In light of the cases that are coming before the Court of Protection about the dividing line between treatments which are clinically inappropriate (and hence are not on the table), and treatments which are not in the person’s best interests (and hence are in principle on the table), Medmoune v France ECHR 27, is of no little importance as the latest Strasbourg word on the position. 

mentalcapacitylawandpolicy.org.uk

Is there space for clinical decision-making in relation to incapacitated adults? The CA pronounces

The Court of Appeal in Townsend v Epsom & Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust EWCA Civ 195 has handed down a decision with very significant implications for all medical decision-making in relation to adults lacking capacity.  In the context of an urgent appeal against a decision of the Vice-President, Theis J, Baker LJ (giving the lead judgment), set out at paragraph 68 a series of principles that he considered to be “clearly and consistently established by the case law and professional guidance.”

mentalcapacitylawandpolicy.org.uk

Contested decision-making about life-sustaining treatment for adults after catastrophic brain injury Is current law and practice fit for purpose and how can we work together to make it better?

Check out this forthcoming talk at Oxford on NBT / PIT / medical futility.   As we get ever better saving lives through improved emergency services, we rescue more people who would otherwise have died at the scene of their injury. Some of those will have catastrophic brain injury remain in prolonged disorders of consciousness. An increasingly frequent challenge for clinicians is what happens when it becomes clear that either: * the patient has an unsurvivable brain injury and simply cannot be saved, * or that they will not regain a quality of life that they would value. How do we manage expectations and difficult decisions, and how do we humanely and legally discontinue unwanted further treatments if they are no longer clinically inappropriate to offer or are not in the patient’s best interests? From a legal perspective there are two distinct pathways for decision-making: Clinical: It is first up to clinicians to decide which treatments are clinically appropriate to offer (usually on the basis that it is likely to be effective and do more good than harm). Best interests: Then, if a treatment is on offer, for patients who lack capacity to decide for themselves, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 requires us to determine whether giving it would be in their best interests and in line with their likely wishes so far as these can be ascertained. Case law in the last decade or so has established that: * It is the giving, not the withdrawing of treatment that has to be justified, and * the key prognostic question is not whether the patient will regain consciousness, but whether they will regain a quality of life that they themselves would value. Importantly, if a treatment is not clinically appropriate to offer this is a clinical decision and not a best interests one. Disputes about these two types of decision are dealt with differently by the English law – through different judicial pathways in different courts. However, clinicians for the most part do not understand the difference and frequently muddle the language. But they are not alone – lawyers (and even some judges) have been known to do so as well! Since 2018, decisions to discontinue clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration no longer require declaratory relief from the court provided all parties are in agreement about the patient’s best interests and the relevant guidance has been followed, but this decision-making is a complex and iterative process which is often poorly understood. Moreover, as best interests discussions have become part of routine practice, they have often highlighted areas of disagreement and the Court has been critical of organisations who delay in bringing the matters to Court. As a result more cases are coming to the court and earlier in the acute phase of care. But the legal processes involved are often time-consuming and expensive. The NHS has not have allocated resources for them and applications started in good faith can be overtaken by more rapidly-moving clinical events, rendering them ultimately redundant and resulting in a waste of scarce clinical time and resources along the way. In this lecture, Prof. Turner-Stokes will explore some of the clinical nuances of this decision-making process, discuss some of the legal conundrums that have arisen from recent experience, and address whether the current system is fit for practice – and if not how we might be able to work together to improve it. About the speaker Professor Lynne Turner-Stokes DM FRCP MBE is a consultant in rehabilitation medicine and Director of the Regional Hyper-acute Rehabilitation Unit (RHRU), Northwick Park. The RHRU provides in-patient and community outreach services for younger adults with severe complex neurological disabilities. She has a special interest in the management of patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDOC) from diagnosis to end of life care. In her academic role as Northwick Park Professor of Rehabilitation Medicine, King’s College London, Prof. Turner-Stokes chairs the Guidelines development group for the Royal College of Physician’s national clinical Guidelines for patients in PDOC, and was the lead editor for the final production of the guideline documentation. She has been extensively involved with the legal aspects of clinical and best interests decision-making working with clinicians and legal teams, as well as acting as an expert witness in court proceedings.

dlvr.it

Why isn’t the Greens’ growing success reflected in media coverage?

Greens have not received more airtime in recognition of their growing popularity.

theconversation.com

Brain Death Backlash: Unregenerately Variable and Illegal Standards for Determination of Death by Neurological Criteria

I am getting ready for my talk for the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics 2025-26 lecture series. My talk is "Brain Death Backlash: Unregenerately Variable and Illegal Standards for Determination of Death by Neurological Criteria."  But check out the other talks that will all be archived on YouTube. Just this month on the same topic are Lainie Ross on "Defining Death: The Case for Choice," Brendan Parent on "Respecting and Learning from the Dead: Ethical Research Involving the Physiologically Maintained Deceased," and David Magnus on "Brain Death Is Really Death. It’s Just Not REALLY Death." 

dlvr.it

Contested decision-making about life-sustaining treatment for adults after catastrophic brain injury - Green Templeton College

Details Date: March 19 Time: 05:45 pm - 07:30 pm Event Category: Lectures and Seminars

gtc.ox.ac.uk

Consultation with Health and Welfare Attorneys/Deputies: A ‘lacuna in the system’ exposed in Cwm Taf Morgannwg UHB v RW

In ignoring her role as decision-maker and failing to consult about treatment, the hospital displayed “a stark disregard for and misunderstanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005” said the Hea…

openjusticecourtofprotection.org

P’s Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment is not valid, not applicable, and not a reflection of her past or present wishes

It seems to me that the judge was entitled to make the decision that P’s ADRT was invalid. That causes me concern because of what it means not just for P but for everyone else with ADRTs.  Do our A…

openjusticecourtofprotection.org

Attorneys disagree about a house purchase for their mother: Case management for a final hearing

Court of Protection judges are very experienced in dealing with fraught situations and family dispute. The stakes are high when family members disagree about the care or finances of a relative who …

openjusticecourtofprotection.org

An emergency statutory will for a dying man

This is a situation that could confront any of us – and our partners, ex-partners, family and friends. … Another lesson from this case is the need to keep wills under review. One option…

openjusticecourtofprotection.org

Cheshire West Revisited

By Lucy Series, 9th October 2025 Note: On 20th October 2025, the Supreme Court will be asked to re-visit the question of how to understand a deprivation of liberty. You can read about the backgroun…

openjusticecourtofprotection.org

Complaints vs breaches: An analysis of how often BBC and Ofcom find broadcasters have broken rules on impartiality — Researching the impartiality of political news

On 25 September 2025, the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) published its ruling on the livestream of a Glastonbury performance by punk-rap duo Bob Vylan that featured alleged hate speech.. T...

enhancingimpartiality.com

Opening Conversations On Assisted Dying, Death and Grief

A joint Open University in Scotland and University of the West of Scotland event, where assisted dying, death and grief will be explored.

eventbrite.co.uk