Abstract

When people are deemed to lack capacity to make their own medical decisions, the Court of Protection makes those decisions on their behalf.  The court often makes decisions counter to the person's stated wishes and preferences, and authorises physical and chemical restraint if it's needed to ensure that treatment can be given.  For example, I've watched judges order cataract surgery for a woman with schizophrenia who was adamantly refusing it (here), HIV medication by injection for another woman with schizophrenia (here); and several cases in which the court has authorised amputation for people with gangrenous legs (e.g. here).  The court also often makes decisions that respect the person's wishes not to receive medical treatment, even when this means that death will follow - as in this case of a woman with a gangrenous leg for whom the judge considered amputation NOT to be in her best interests.  In this talk I'll reflect on some of these cases and discuss the difference it makes to observe the decision-making process as it happens, live, in the court - rather than reading the judgment afterwards. I'll also explain how citizens can watch hearings like these in court, and explain the role of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project, a citizen-led initiative that promotes open justice and transparency in the Court of Protection.