| Display title | QJ v A Local Authority [2020] EWCOP 3 |
| Default sort key | QJ v A Local Authority (2020) EWCOP 3 |
| Page length (in bytes) | 1,218 |
| Page ID | 10830 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Page image |  |
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 13:46, 3 July 2020 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 11:54, 8 October 2021 |
| Total number of edits | 5 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | (1) This s21A appeal was adjourned for medical evidence in relation to whether QJ had capacity (a) to decide on whether to receive nutrition and hydration either orally or artificially; (b) to decide more generally on medical treatment; and (c) to decide on admission to hospital. (2) On the day of the hearing QJ had for the first time indicated a willingness to be put on a drip. Even if QJ were now found to have capacity, the case should still come back before the court because: (a) it may very well be a "finely balanced" decision (and so within Practice Guidance (Court of Protection: Serious Medical Treatment) (2020) EWCOP 2); and, in any event, (b) where there is already an application in relation to the central issue the matter should only be concluded within court proceedings and not left to clinical decisions. |
