VA (Medical Treatment), Re

VA (Medical Treatment), Re

The judge’s best interests analysis was succinct but sufficient. There was no clear evidence of VA’s wishes to justify invasive treatment; clinical evidence supported extubation and palliative care. The process was fair, and the family had adequate opportunity to participate. The appeal was dismissed as the decision was not wrong or procedurally unjust.

Parties
Appellant: VK; First Respondent: Hospital Trust; Second Respondent: VA (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (medical Treatment, Court of Protection) / Appeal From Order of Court of Protection; Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (permission granted but appeal fails)
Legal Topics
Best Interests Decision Making, Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment, Capacity to Consent to Treatment, Procedural Fairness, Costs in Welfare Proceedings
Medical Law Mental Capacity Human Rights Best Interests Decision Making Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment Capacity to Consent to Treatment Procedural Fairness Costs in Welfare Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VK

Appellant

Hospital Trust

First Respondent

VA (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (medical Treatment, Court of Protection) / Appeal From Order of Court of Protection; Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Protection judge erred in granting a declaration authorising extubation and palliative care for an incapacitated adult against family wishes
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness or breach of human rights in the process
  3. 3 Whether the judge gave sufficient weight to the family’s evidence of the patient’s wishes and feelings

Ratio Decidendi

The judge’s best interests analysis was succinct but sufficient. There was no clear evidence of VA’s wishes to justify invasive treatment; clinical evidence supported extubation and palliative care. The process was fair, and the family had adequate opportunity to participate. The appeal was dismissed as the decision was not wrong or procedurally unjust.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (permission granted but appeal fails)

Orders

  • No order as to costs (save Trust to pay 50% of Official Solicitor’s costs)
  • Stay on extubation order until 20 October 2023 to allow for possible application to Supreme Court