Capacity choice and compulsion

Lucy Scott-Moncrieff*

Harold C, originally from Jamaica, was admitted to Broadmoor Hospital in the 1960’s. In 1993, at the age of 68, he developed gangrene in his foot and was transferred to Heatherwood Hospital for treatment.

Mr Rutter, the orthopaedic surgeon treating Mr C, considered that he only had a 15% chance of survival if he did not have his foot amputated. However Mr C refused to agree to the amputation,and as Mr Rutter said that he would not amputate without Mr C’s unequivocal consent, the wound was simply cleaned up, although Mr Rutter considered that there was a high likelihood of infection spreading from the wound to other organs, causing them to fail. He therefore continued to believe that amputation was in Harold C’s best interests. Mr C wanted to get a guarantee that the hospital would not amputate his foot without his consent, whatever might change in the future, so I wrote to the hospital, asking for an undertaking to this effect. The hospital refused to give the undertaking, and pointed out that if the infection spread there was a real likelihood that Mr C would become delirious, would thereby lose the capacity to make decisions about his treatment,and the hospital could then, acting in his best interests, amputate his foot. Mr C went to court, to seek a declaration that the hospital could not operate on him without his written consent.

Footnotes:
* Partner, Scott-Moncrieff Harbour & Sinclair, Solicitors

Price: £3.00

 

<< Back to previous page