Unbelievable
2 Likes
It is chillingâŚI couldnât get the logic either. It does seem likely the decision is motivated by the cost. That could conceivably be a reasonable thing to argue (other patients etc) but they arenât arguing it! Instead the docs are trying their damnedest to make it appear she hasnât capacity, when she obviously has.
Capacity is supposed to be presumed unless the contrary is indicated - but they tested it twice, then went to court anyway when she passed it .
â⌠In STâs case, an essential element of the process of decision-making is missing because she is unable to use or weigh information which has been shown to be both reliable and true.â
The judge seems to be pirrouetting on the ice with a daffodil between his lips. The last statement is equivalent to saying that disagreeing with doctors shows lack of capacity.
Everyone knows that that precise error is what âcapacityâ was developed to protect against.
Including the judge who takes pains to assure us heâs On It:
ââŚThis is a very different position from the act of making an unwise, but otherwise capacitous, decision.â
She was not unable to weigh the doctorsâ information - she disagreed with it. That expressly does not indicate lack of capacity.
Having disagreed with it, she then weighed (correctly) the information (as she interpreted it) - it meant there was an outside chance to try for, if they didnât pull the plug on her first.
I must admit to a bit of an emotional reaction - maybe my logic is wrong!?
4 Likes
Hi @Evvy_dense , youâre exactly on the point. The judge appears to be suffering from the well-known judicial mentality - delusions of adequacy! The legal stables need to be swept clean imo - if we are still allowed opinions!
cheers
2 Likes
Someone (gcjohns1971) in one of the btls neatly performs the honours:
21 hours ago
This has to be a Monty Python skit.
JUDGE: Are you competent to decide whether you wish to be euthanized?
PATIENT: Yes. I am prepared to discuss my mental fitness to make the decision using the social morality percepts of Platoâs philosophy as per his work âRepublicâ and also in the Aristotean view, as well as to compare and contrast the two.
JUDGE: Do you consent to be euthanized?
PATIENT: No.
JUDGE: The patient is incompetent to make her own decisions and will be euthanized at once!
PATIENT: I object!
JUDGE: The patient is in contempt of court! The punishment is euthanasia!
PATIENT: But how can I be contemptuous when youâve already decided I am incompetent to understand whatâs going on? Isnât comprehension a prerequisite of contempt?
JUDGE: Silence! Speaking without permission! The sentence is death!
PATIENT: But thereâs no legal death penalty in the UK! Much less for speaking our of turn!
JUDGE: Practicing Law without a License! The penalty is death! Let the sentence be carried out forthwith!
PATIENT: A modicum of reason and procedure ought to be required before authorizing the government to take lives!
JUDGE: Excessive presumtious vocabulary! The sentence is DEATH.
PATIENT: ButâŚ
JUDGE: Public profanity! DEATH!
PATIENT: Itâs a conjunction in the English Language!
JUDGE: Witchcraft! Burn the Witch! She refers to profane conjunction with the Unholy One!
PATIENT: I am not a witch!
JUDGE: Iâll be The Judge of that! YOU WILL BE DRAWN AND QUARTERED AT DAWN FOR YOUR CRIMES!
PATIENT: Itâs a competency hearing to determine my competency for consent to euthanasia! Its not a trial!
JUDGE (wild eyed): THE WITCH THREATENS EVEN THE FAIR YOUNG PEOPLE OF FAR-AWAY ASIA! BURN THE WITCH!
3 Likes
I came across this a while ago, and didnât share it because I donât know the source and itâs a bit sensationalist which doesnât appeal to me. However, given the original context;
ST is of no use to themâŚ
2 Likes
If she is not capable then the Court Of Protection ought to be involved.
I donât recall many of the specifics but Evvy is 
re the impetus for the law on capacity. The doctor, a mate of Theresa Mayâs daddy whatâs more, and onside with local magistrates, coroner, Conservative Club, administered deadly doses of pointless drugs to wealthy ladies who had conveniently remembered him in their wills. This was long before Shipman. Hastings? Hove? Somewhere 'round there.