The withdrawal of PD9E and where we need to get to re the MCA
I am posting this one separately, and not within the thread where I often post my PDFs, because I am hoping for some discussion [not expecting - but hoping].
There was a 'court practice direction' (PD9E) which until recently, meant that even when the clinicians and the family all believed that the withdrawal of clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration from 'comatose patients' would be the right thing to do, they had to ask a court 'for permission' before withdrawing CANH. That 'rule' has been withdrawn, and the Supreme Court explained what has to happen instead about 2 weeks ago - the court's ruling, was a topic of media interest for a day or two, and my PDF discusses some of the discussions of the Supreme Court's ruling.
The point of interest to me, is that I think some people will be claiming that the Supreme Court said 'if the doctors think it is in the patient's best interests for CANH to be withdrawn, and the family do not disagree, then it doesn't need to go to court'. But I consider that the Supreme Court actually said 'if the family and the doctors all agree that it is in the patient's best interests for CANH to be withdrawn, then it doesn't need to go to court'.
And - those two interpretations of the ruling, are most definitely NOT the same: they are fundamentally different.
Associated files and links:
The Mental Capacity Act, PD9E, fish with feathers and a Scream of Frustration
Downloaded: 140 times