The Court of Protection is Back in the Spotlight.

Britain's big set piece for today places the Court of Protection (COP) firmly back in the spotlight with the case of a 55 year old Muslim man in a permanent vegetative state. As always with COP cases reporting restrictions means that the exact details such as the patients name are not known. However the case revolves around a man who suffered a massive cardiac event (heart attack) that left him in a permanent vegetaive state (coma). The local health authority (Pennine Acute Hospitals Trust) are petitioning the COP for permission to withdraw life extending treatments as there is no chance of recovery so extending life would merely extend suffering. The man's family are arguing that his Muslim faith means he would want his life extended regardless of suffering. As the Islam and Christianity generally agree on issues such as this I don't think the man's Muslim faith is particularly relevant but it does bring the case to a wider audience especially amongst Egyptians who may remember a similar argument about Hosni Mubarak and his health problems.

The purpose of bringing the case to a wider audience is Britain trying to justify it's ruling in my grandmother's COP case by arguing that there is no point carrying out a Mental State Examination (MSE) on my grandmother because if she doesn't suffer from non-specific dementia she suffers from irreversible brain damage caused by a combination of drug abuse and repeated blows to the head. However they will have a tough time arguing that it is not in my grandmother's best interests to receive an accurate diagnosis because it will affect the type of care she receives, who pays for that care and oh yeah it's a legal requirement. Also it is impossible for them to argue that it's not in the wider public interest because if she has been caused irreversible brain damage by the actions of her doctors and other care givers it represents a criminal offence of Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) which is considered a crime against the state and overwhelms mere civil law. Therefore preventing an investigation into allegations of GBH constitutes an offence of perverting the course of justice.

Also I should take a moment to comment on the brilliance on the decision yesterday (20/8/12) by a US court to reject an application from famous cyclist Lance Armstrong over doping allegations. You see I'm obviously the famous cyclist however the application Armstrong was making was an attempt to block an investigation which is what the Brits have done in my grandmother's case. So I think the only possible response to the Armstrong rejection is; yes?!?

10:55 on 21/8/12.

Edited at around 15:20 on 21/8/12 to add;

Funnily enough the COP has been delayed in reaching a ruling in the above mentioned case. That's because they were hoping the cases would be debated in the terms of whether or not my father (my grandmother's attorney) and my younger brother (the replacement attorney) expressed wish that my grandmother did not undergo a MSE gave the COP possible grounds to explain it's ruling. It doesn't because as I've explained before granting someone power of attorney doesn't give them the right to do what they like. Instead it places a duty on them to protect the person they have attorney over's (their charge) best interests. Allowing someone to be unlawfully imprisoned by denying them an MSE and committing an offence of perverting the course of justice by preventing an investigation into alleged GBH most certainly does not fit into the definition of 'protecting their charge's best interests.' So by expressing a wish to do so in a Court of law both my father and brother have ruled themselves to be unfit people to hold a power of attorney invalidating any power of attorney they may have.

What has happened today though is a Coroner's inquest has delivered a narrative verdict in the case of a 92 year old female dementia sufferer (Daisy Castell) who died after being punched in the head by a 69 year old male dementia sufferer (Gordon Grimsey) in a nursing home in Suffolk. The Coroner (Peter Dean) ruled that Ms Castell's death was caused by a brain injury that resulted from the punch but there was no malice. This raises the issue of the GBH charge in my grandmother's case because in order to convict on a GBH charge you must demonstrate malicious intent. This could prove difficult in my grandmother's case but without playing all my cards the repeated warnings the doctor received over the use of Buprenorphine along with the catalogue of lies and deceits and the monetary gain that has resulted from the alleged offence I think there's a pretty good chance of demonstrating malicious intent. Even if malice couldn't be demonstrated it still certainly falls under the definition of medical negligence if not willful endangerment meaning the negligent parties have to pick up the bill.

Also today NHS hospitals have been told they can set up for profit businesses in foreign countries to fund NHS treatment within Britain. The idea here is to bring the issue of cost into the arguments about when to withdraw medical treatment thus fuelling opposition to Obamacare in the USA by bringing up the notion of the 'death panels.' This is of course nonsense because allowing NHS hospitals to set up for profit businesses overseas is just a way of making them more like private health care providers like they have in the USA where treatment cost is frequently an issue in the decision whether or not to deny or withdraw medical treatment. Obamacare is actually an attempt to make US health care more like NHS health care therefore reducing the number of 'death panels.'

15:45 on 21/8/12.