Facebook Pixel Code
x
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.

Critical commentary on case law

This is a preview of the 17-page document
Read full text

The second part of this paper presents an analysis of the court’s decision in Aintree. Jmes, ahusband, fther of three, gandfather and a musician was admitted to hospital for medical treatment in 2012. At the time he became infected and was placed in the intensive care unit of the hospital and placed on a ventilator. His treatments varied and included CPR, atracheostomy and receipt of artificial hydration and nutrition. Although his condition improved and worsened throughout, h was eventually unable to make decisions about his medical treatment. However, and responded through nodding and smiling to his family and hospital staff.

7 James reportedly kissed family members on occasion. Te hospital applied to the Court of Protection for declarations including a declaration that it would be in James’ best interest to withhold some treatment such as CPR if the patient’s condition deteriorates. The family opposed these declaration on the grounds that James had previously recovered from infections and that he was showing signs through responses to family and nursing staff that he was able to sustain and enjoy of life.

The Court of Protection denied the declarations and the hospital appealed. Te Court of Appeal allowed the declarations and the family appealed to the Supreme Court. Te issue of capacity was considered by the Supreme Court in that the patient was diagnosed as being in a state of ‘minimal consciousness’ (Aintree, 2013: pra. 11 However, te Supreme Court considered that this term is misleading based on Baker J’s contention I W v M (2011) that minimal consciousness can mean anything from ‘just above the vegetative state’ ‘bordering full consciousness’.

Hwever, dspite the family’s observations about James’ ability to respond to family and medical staff, amedical diagnosis had been made that James’ neurological state had diminished and his brain functioning had been impaired significantly. Terefore James’ capacity was not an issue. Tus Aintree was not about whether or not the patient lacked capacity. Rther the case was about how to act and treat a patient that lacks capacity to consent to treatment or the withdrawal of treatment in critical care conditions. The Mental Capacity Act mkes it that it is to be assumed initially that the adult patient has the requisite capacity and all steps should be taken to. ..

This is a preview of the 17-page document
Open full text

Related Topics

Close ✕
Tracy Smith Editor&Proofreader
Expert in: Law, Philosophy, Media
Hire an Editor
Matt Hamilton Writer
Expert in: Law, Religion and Theology, People
Hire a Writer
preview essay on Critical commentary on case law
  • Pages: 17 (4250 words)
  • Document Type: Essay
  • Subject: Law
  • Level: Undergraduate
WE CAN HELP TO FIND AN ESSAYDidn't find an essay?

Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples

Contact Us