After CPR, he was sedated, intubated, ventilated + moved to ICU.
Scans show a very significant hypoxic ischaemic brain injury.
The unanimous view of the treating team is that he's now in a Permanent Vegetative State.
The applicant Trust (represented by @sutton_es) has applied for a declaration that NK lacks capacity to make his own decisions about his medical treatment and that it is not in his best interests to continue to receive life-sustaining treatment, incl. ventilatory support.
But NK's loving and devoted family oppose removal of ventilation + CANH
They are hoping for a 'miracle'.
So the Trust got an independent second opinion from a a leading expert.
He confirmed the diagnosis and conclusions of the treating team.
Since the family and the doctors cannot agree on NK's best interests, the Trust applied to court.
The Official Solicitor (Nageena Khalique) is there to represent NK's best interests. She has not yet come to a settled view as to what is best for NK.
Lawyer for the family is Simon McKay.
The family don't accept the view of the clinical team or independent expert + want to instruct their own dr to report to the court.
Judge clear that dr appointed must be qualified PDOC assessor. (see Annex 2b)
Arrangements were made for expert report, communication between experts, advocates' meeting etc.
A final hearing is planned, over 2 days, in week beginning 1st November 2021.
If you're interested in law + ethics of treatment withdrawal, this will be a good hearing to watch.
In closing this case management hearing, Cobb J sympathised with the "extraordinarily difficult situation" family are in + wondered whether the hearing was a "terrible distraction" or "a comfort that there is this forum where everyone has the opportunity to express their views"
I'd recommend watching the final hearing.
You'll see a courteous, empathetic and careful judge.
Very experienced counsel - incl. @sutton_es who is clear, succinct, and thorough.
And possibly doctors giving expert witness + cross-examination.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm watching the Court of Appeal consider whether a care plan to facilitate C's contact with a sex worker could be implemented without commission of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It's an appeal against Hayden's judgment in the COP.
Sir James Eadie QC is counsel for the Secretary of State of Justice, the Appellant in this case. He's presenting the case against Hayden J's decision that s.53A Sexual Offences Act has "little, if any relevance" to C's proposed contact with a sex worker. blackstonechambers.com/barristers/jam…
Here's what s.53A of the Sexual Offences Act says:
Mother "suffers from a severe form of agoraphobia which is a classified mental illness + an impairment of or disturbance in the functioning of her mind or brain within the meaning of s.2(1) MCA" (para 7 judgment)
Her agoraphobia "is so overwhelming that it exerts a significant effect on her ability to weigh matters in the balance if the activity in point entails her leaving home". Also short-term memory problems, says expert witness, psychiatrist Tyrone Glover.
This morning I observed this hearing before Judge Rebecca Brown in the Court of Protection concerning whether it was in the best interests of a man in his 30s ("AD") to be vaccinated against Covid-19. #NotSecretCourt
The case was brought by CCG who believe C-19 vaccination to be in AD's best interests.
AD was represented by OS who was of the same view.
His mother opposes vaccination.
AD has Down's syndrome, learning disability + autism. He's "resistant to all healthcare interventions".
Multi-disciplinary team of professionals has drawn up a plan. He'll be vaccinated at home.Encouraged to wear short sleeved top that morning + covertly sedated via his morning drink. While "distracted by his favourite activities", nurse will enter + jab him without any engagement.