Holly.gif
Open justice | Let us know if you have a tribunal decision you would like to publish (see Re A)
Email updates | CPD scheme

Online forum | Latest topic on forum: NR rights after patient released to care | News

January 2022 update

This page is automatically generated: it will only be complete at the end of the month. All monthly updates are available here: Archive of monthly updates.

Website

  • Magic Book. The Magic Book is a database of contact details. The main idea is to add the hospitals and other places you visit (not just your own place of work). To create/edit contacts, there is no need to log in and the process is very quick and simple. See Magic Book
  • Mental Health Law Online CPD scheme: 12 points for £60. Obtain 12 CPD points online by answering monthly questionnaires. The scheme is an ideal way to obtain your necessary hours, or to evidence your continued competence. It also helps to support the continued development of this website, and your subscriptions (and re-subscriptions) are appreciated. For full details and to subscribe, see CPD scheme.
  • Cases. By the end of this month, Mental Health Law Online contained 2196 categorised cases


Cases

  • Case (Ordinary residence and s117). R (Worcestershire County Council) v SSHSC [2021] EWCA Civ 1957 — JG was detained under s3 in Worcestershire (Area 1), discharged to residential care in Swindon (Area 2), detained again under s3 in Swindon and discharged again. The Court of Appeal held that: (1) Area 1's duty subsists until it comes to an end by a s117(2) decision that the patient "is no longer in need" of aftercare services (ordinary residence in area 2 when subsequently detained makes no difference); there had been no such decision so the duty continued throughout both the second period of detention and beyond. (2) Obiter, by the ordinary meaning of "ordinarily resident" and under the Shah test JG was ordinarily resident in Swindon immediately before the second detention, and there was nothing in subsequent caselaw (including Cornwall) or the Care Act 2014 amendments (including the change from "resident" to "ordinarily resident") justifying a different conclusion.
  • Case (Coronavirus vaccination). Royal Borough of Greenwich v IOSK [2021] EWCOP 65 — It was determined to be in the best interests of IOSK, a 17-year-old male with autism and severe learning disability, to be administered a coronavirus vaccination, despite family objections.

Resources

  • Coronavirus treatment and CPR. Celia Kitzinger and Amber Dar, '“Non-mainstream” treatments and CPR for a COVID-19 patient in intensive care' (Open Justice COP Project, 24/1/22) — In this hearing Hayden J expressed his orthodox views on the treatment of coronavirus with hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin and doxycycline (declining to declare that treatment to be in AB's best interests as it would require doctors to act "unethically" and inconsistently with medical evidence) and his views on dignity at the end of life (declining to declare that attempting CPR would be in AB's best interests as he agreed with the doctors that it would be futile). The blog post notes that the Trust had framed both matters (treatment and CPR) solely in terms of best interests until revealing in cross-examination that the treatment was not an available option (and being ambiguous about the availability of CPR), and wonders why the case even got to court and took so long given that the court will not compel doctors to act against their clinical judgment. Reading between the lines, though, it seems that the judge was keen not to lose the opportunity to air his opinions: for example, he interrupted an early question which would have established whether the team would administer CPR if it were declared to be in AB's best interests by stating that "this is not the point at which to ask that question" and instead asking a closed question about whether any CPR success would reduce AB's quality of life.

Social media

Nothing to report this month.


Other items

=Has been added to MHLO
=Only appears in this list

Retrieved from "https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=January_2022_update&oldid=57131"