It's impossible not to feel both humbled + impressed by the (so far) 3 day court hearing I've been watching before Mr Justice Hayden in the Court of Protection. At the centre of the case is a young man whose dignity, integrity + kindness shine through. #NotSecretCourt
The overriding priority in court is not to violate his autonomy - coupled with a concern from everyone to enable + support him to make a choice to stay alive. He has a past full of suffering and a future full of promise.
His parents are extraordinary people who provide love, kindness, safety. They also respect his values and his autonomy. They describe him as thoughtful + considerate; he puts others before himself; he is honest and very clear on what's right + wrong.
We heard him talking with Mr Justice Hayden for about half an hour - about his faith, football, swimming (Hayden enjoys this too!), his favourite food (salmon). They also discussed his reasons for refusing life-sustaining treatment.
We heard witness evidence from psychiatrists that he lacks capacity to make his own decision because of inflexible "concrete" thinking associated with childhood trauma. He has "over-valued ideas" which impair his thinking. Capacity is "on a knife-edge" - probably lacking.
Psychologist gives different perspective. Finds P to be a warm + compassionate person with a strong sense of self, emotionally resilient + someone determined to be true to his own values. Compassion or narrative therapy may help him. But he has capacity to make medical decisions.
Judge must decide whether P has capacity to make his own medical decisions or not + if not, what treatment is in his best interests. Everyone is agreed that treatment should not be forced upon him. Neither physical or psychological treatment. "Gentle persuasion" is contemplated.
There's a lot of discussion in court about what "gentle persuasion" means. Whether explicit consent is required. Whether acquiescence is acceptable. Should he be repeatedly asked for consent or can it be assumed in the absence of resistance. Tough questions in this case.
P's voice is clear - when he speaks for himself, when he emails his barrister with a question for one of the clinicians during the hearing, through the way he is described by parents. Mum says he feels he's "being heard" + describes Judge Hayden as "tremendous".
As an observer I am impressed by the extraordinary time and care taken the all the lawyers to work together to determine the best course of action. It's not a battle between opposing views but a collective effort to do the right thing for P. "Inquisatorial" justice at its best.
People often talk about the importance of "empathy" or "listening to P's voice". That's core to what's happening here, but it's not sugary or sentimental. There's critical thinking + cross-questioning and sheer hard work as the court makes the effort to 'walk in P's shoes'.
