Living wills protect the most vulnerable
Written by Eloise Power for The Times.
How many of us have thought about making a living will? Living wills — or, more accurately, advance decisions — enable adults with mental capacity to make a decision to refuse treatment if they lose capacity in the future.
One of the most common reasons why people lose capacity and require medical treatment is dementia. According to the Alzheimer’s Society, 225,000 people in the UK will develop dementia this year, or one person every three minutes. By 2025 there will be more than a million people with dementia in the UK
Click here for the full article.
Read our Articles
The BBC article includes a quote from Edward Pleeth, who previously represented the applicant, HM Senior Coroner for The Eastern Area of Greater London.
Jamie Mathieson writes for Lawyer2B.
Tom Burroughes writes for Wealth Briefing, featuring comments by Sophia Roper.
Danger in deep water or just ripples in the pool: has the Pool judgment changed the law on expert evidence?
Keith Rix, Anthony Haycroft & Nigel Eastman co-authored a piece on expert evidence published in BJPsych Advances (2017).
Sentences for fraud after tragedies must be a deterrent, Anothy Haycroft writes for The Times.
Bridget Dolan QC and Caroline Hurst, of Switalskis Solicitors write for Community Care about the key practice implications from the case of a man who endured a year of celibacy because a council failed to provide him with sex education.
Following the paternity test of Salvador Dali, Michael Mylonas QC writes for Spear’s about the rise in courts ordering DNA testing to identify heirs.
John van der Luit-Drummond, deputy editor of the Solicitors Journal, writes that the individuals found responsible for the Grenfell Tower fire could face charges of gross negligence manslaughter. The article quotes Anthony Haycroft.
Do statutory tests for detention under the MeHA 1983 require a proportionality assessment pursuant to ECHR?
An interview with Fiona Paterson by Alex Heshmaty, first published on Lexis®PSL Family on 13 July 2017.
By Lisa O’Dwyer, Director Medico-Legal Services, AvMA.
Sarah Clarke QC writes in The Law Society Gazette.
As news breaks that the Supreme Court will hear an appeal by Charlie Gard’s parents, David Lawson writes for the Solicitors Journal on the principles behind the best interests test.
Jean-Yves Gilg, editor-in-chief at Solicitors Journal, writes that the parents of Charlie Gard argue that decision to seek treatment in US would cause Charlie no significant harm. The article quotes Bridget Dolan QC.
Anthony Haycroft writes in The Times on breast surgeon Ian Paterson.
Chris Daw QC writes in The Law Society Gazette.
Hill Dickinson’s David Locke reviews the 3rd edition of Medical Treatment: Decisions and the Law for the New Law Journal.
“This is a book for practitioners written by practitioners. It is as close to granting the reader a free, direct advice-line to counsel, as the joint heads of Serjeants’ Inn are ever likely to permit.”
John de Bono QC discusses the Lord Chancellor’s announcement that the discount rate would be revised from 2.5% to -0.75%. This clearly has major implications for the calculation of future losses and will lead to much higher awards and settlements than we have seen before.
Adrian Hopkins QC co-writes an article in the Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons concerning the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. The article was co-written by Angela Coulter, senior research scientist at the University of Oxford and Ben Moulton, senior vice-president of the Informed Medical Decisions Foundation, Boston, MA, US.
This case sounds a second cautionary note from the Court of Appeal against the mechanistic use of balance sheet exercises and the failure to apply the appropriate weight to more important factors when assessing best interests.
Regulators, HMRC, investigation agencies and private prosecutors are pursuing more cases than ever before against corporate bodies, directors and executives. Chris Daw QC, Sarah Clarke and Anthony Haycroft write for The Lawyer.
Alex Ruck Keene gives a glowing review to the third edition of Medical Treatment: Decisions and the Law on his Mental Capacity Law and Policy blog.
Sir Robert Francis QC speaks to Legal Business.
In this paper Jonathan Davies explains the interaction of employment law and police regulations, setting out the differences between police employee and police office rights and how they are enforced, as well as setting out the procedure the Employment Tribunal follows and how that procedure may come into conflict with the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 and the Police (Performance) Regulations 2012.
Freedom to speak up: an independent review into creating an open and honest reporting culture in the NHS.
Our Director of Client Care, Catherine Calder, reveals her legal inspirations.
When is a DOL not a DOL? When the parents of a 15 year old agree to it.
Montgomery (Appellant) v Lanarkshire Health Board (Respondent)  UKSC 11
On appeal from  CSIH
Management matters: Catherine Calder explains why modern management is key for today’s most successful chambers
Serjeants’ Inn silk quoted in Enabling Potential – Achieving a New Deal for Children with Cerebral Palsy, a report outlining the findings of a parliamentary inquiry into the cerebral palsies, the overall aim of which is to identify policy changes that could help the 30,000 children in the UK with cerebral palsies to achieve their full potential in life.
Bridget was featured as a result of her work as counsel to the seven concurrent inquests into the deaths of seven British residents who were among the 40 killed in the 2013 hostage crisis at the In Amenas gas plant in Algeria.
The last word on consent? Montgomery is the belated obituary, not the death knell, of medical paternalism, says Charles Foster
Serjeants’ Inn member writes in national newspaper on the new Duty of Candour on NHS trusts arising from the 2012-13 Francis inquiry into patient care.
Michael was featured after acting for an NHS trust in the Court of Protection case where Mr Justice Cobb ruled that doctors could lawfully decline to force-feed an anorexic woman despite the probability that she would die.