View source for Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust v RC (2014) EWHC 1317 (COP), (2014) MHLO 22

''A detained patient (RC) was self-harming by cutting and had made an advance decision refusing blood transfusions. (1) RC had capacity to refuse blood transfusions and sometimes had capacity to lacerate himself. (2) The advance decision was valid and applicable. (3) The self-harming was a symptom or manifestation of mental disorder so a blood transfusion would be treatment under s63 MHA 1983. (4) Where the consequences of a decision not to impose s63 treatment may be life-threatening the Trust should apply to the High Court for declaratory relief and (just as with a decision to impose treatment) the hearing will involve a 'full merits review'. (5) It would be lawful to withhold blood transfusions despite the s63 power (indeed, the judge stated that given RC's current capacity and advance decision it would be 'an abuse of power ... even to think about imposing a blood transfusion' and that it 'would be a denial of a most basic freedom'). ''

==Related judgments==
[[Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust v RC (2014) EWHC 1317 (COP), (2014) MHLO 22]]
*[[Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust v RC (2014) EWHC 1136 (COP), (2014) MHLO 20]]

==Citations==
Bailii has changed the neutral citation to: [2014] EWCOP 1317

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2014) EWHC 1317 (COP)}}

[http://www.mentalcapacitylawandpolicy.org.uk/advance-decisions-and-the-mha-1983/ Alex Ruck Keene, 'Advance decisions and the MHA 1983' (Mental Capacity Law and Policy, 1/5/14)]

[[Category:Advance decision cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2014 cases]]