King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v C [2015] EWCOP 80
Death "The question in this difficult and finely balanced case is whether C has the capacity to decide whether or not to consent to the life saving treatment that her doctors wish to give her following her attempted suicide, namely renal dialysis. Without such treatment the almost inevitable outcome will be the death of C. If the treatment is administered the likelihood is that it will save C's life, albeit that there remains an appreciable and increasing possibility that C will be left requiring dialysis for the rest of her life. C now refuses to consent to dialysis and much of the treatment associated with it. ... For the reasons set out above I am not satisfied on the evidence before the court that the Trust has established on the balance of probabilities that C lacks capacity to decide whether or not to accept treatment by way of dialysis. ... [A] capacitous individual is entitled to decide whether or not to accept treatment from his or her doctor. The right to refuse treatment extends to declining treatment that would, if administered, save the life of the patient and, accordingly, a capacitous patient may refuse treatment even in circumstances where that refusal will lead to his or her death. The decision C has reached to refuse dialysis can be characterised as an unwise one. That C considers that the prospect of growing old, the fear of living with fewer material possessions and the fear that she has lost, and will not regain, 'her sparkle' outweighs a prognosis that signals continued life will alarm and possibly horrify many, although I am satisfied that the ongoing discomfort of treatment, the fear of chronic illness and the fear of lifelong treatment and lifelong disability are factors that also weigh heavily in the balance for C. C's decision is certainly one that does not accord with the expectations of many in society. Indeed, others in society may consider C's decision to be unreasonable, illogical or even immoral within the context of the sanctity accorded to life by society in general. None of this however is evidence of a lack of capacity. The court being satisfied that, in accordance with the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, C has capacity to decide whether or not to accept treatment C is entitled to make her own decision on that question based on the things that are important to her, in keeping with her own personality and system of values and without conforming to society's expectation of what constitutes the 'normal' decision in this situation (if such a thing exists). As a capacitous individual C is, in respect of her own body and mind, sovereign."
Essex search
This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:- 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Law Newsletter' (issue 61, December 2015)
- 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Law Newsletter' (issue 63, March 2016)
- 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 106, July 2020)
- 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 131, May 2023)
- 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 76, May 2017)
Full judgment: BAILII
Subject(s):
- Medical treatment cases🔍
Date: 30/11/15🔍
Court: Court of Protection🔍
Judicial history:
Judge(s):
- MacDonald🔍
Parties:
Citation number(s):
- [2015] EWCOP 80B
- [2015] MHLO 125
- V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWCOP 83
- V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWCOP 88
- V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCOP 21
- V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCOP 29
Published: 22/12/15 20:44
Cached: 2025-04-18 07:28:54
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: