NHS gagging order on 19 year old with mitochondrial disease.

[AbbeyGailsParty]

The girl cannot be identified. Canjot identify the hospital she is in. Cannot make decisions about her own medical treatment. Neither she or her family can fund raise for alternative treatment in Canada or USA.
Unless I’m really missing something, she sounds perfectly reasonable and rational. Wtf is going on? Atm this is the only link I’ve found.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/i-fight-doctors-who-say-30900078

How could they collude when they all assessed her independently?

And a bunch of doctors are colluding to lie about a teenagers diagnosis because...

Please don't put words into my mouth, that's not what I said at all.
When groups of individuals get together, including professionals can get carried away with theories & this is called collusion.
It's happened numberless times.
That said, I Don't know if it's happening here because no-one does since there's little information deliberately placed in the public sphere.

That's not what collusion means.

There's a case happening at the moment where a family are fighting against a ruling on end of life support..Army formed and all that. The patient has been named and the hospital too and the judge and all that..so whats different in this case? Know its a good thing as the comments against are about barricading the room and that its happenint for organs again and all that blah..

Is it because the circumstances are very different there is no naming? Or because she is awake? Know silly question..

This case however so sad. The conflicting reports are also very interesting. You have the BBC with their one which makes the situation more clear and others which make it sound like she's fine and just need to go off on a plane

It is termed collusion in the places I've worked. Not sure whether you're going to be constructive but, I'm not arguing about terminology

"Workplace collusion is fraudulent insofar as one is living a lie and supporting another to live his or her lie"

On just about every single page of this thread there’s been a link to the full court ruling. Here it is again:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2023/40.html

It’s very long and very detailed, but sets out all the facts of the case, unlike any of the lurid tabloid stories you may have read.

Yaa have read that. Which makes it more strange how conflicting reports are on the case. Like said people read the BBC one and get more info..others would read the interview/Daily Mail and end up with the view that she can just leave and get help. Mean guess various media platforms have a agenda and all and these Army's do more harm then good. As for the Christian concern lot...

If she were given a billion pounds tomorrow by Elon Musk, there is still nowhere in the world that she could be transferred to that could lengthen her life. Her and her family's inability to accept that tragedy is the reason for the court case. This isn't a fight that can be won, or a fight between the patient and the doctors. It's a horrific situation in which all the parties are trying to find the best way forward. The involvement of the courts is to ensure protection for her and guidance for the team looking after her. Any other framing of this is misguided and unfair.

@Messyhair321 why would the doctors involved be "colluding" with each other? Just why?
This is just looking for a conspiracy. It's a witch trial situation, isn't it:

Only 1 doctor has assessed the patient as actively dying - it's not adequate, need more evidence.

Now several doctors have reached the same conclusion - oh they must be colluding with each other so cannot be trusted and their evidence dismissed.

How do you think the patient's medical condition can assessed most accurately if not by her medical team? Or do you think they are wrong and the patient and her parents are right?

There's a case happening at the moment where a family are fighting against a ruling on end of life support..Army formed and all that. The patient has been named and the hospital too and the judge and all that..so whats different in this case?

I don't know if this is the case with the example you mentioned, but with "ST" the Court of Protection are involved and apparently it's normal for their proceedings to be no-named

Actually there is quite a lot of detailed information available via the published judgment. It's much more informative than the news reports.

First of all, she could try to raise the money if she didn't have a gagging order.

Second of all, and something people here don't seem to understand the importance of, SHE HAS BEEN ASSESSED BY TWO PSYCHOLOGISTS AS HAVING MENTAL CAPACITY. This is crucial and the whole reason the Mental Capacity Act exists.

She has capacity. She wants to live. And she should have the right to do all she can to try and live, especially if she wants to try and raise the funds herself.

I have many relatives who are social workers and it's their job to carry out mental capacity (or deprivation of liberty) assessments, and they have a lot to do with the court of protection. And they all say this stinks.

And how can it be "in someone's best interest to die", if they clearly have stated they do not want to die? Or at least that they want to die trying to live?

I wrote a long post and then deleted it.

It's not about not wanting to die, it's about the fact she is going to. And that can be done with dignity and no pain, or it can be half naked, surrounded by an arrest team being shocked, having drugs pumped in to her and no chance to say goodbye to her family.

Raise funds for what exactly? There is no treatment being offered to her. There's the Canadian one which is not currently happening but haven't offered her a trial spot or the American trials for a different type of mitochondrial which also haven't offered her a spot. There is no treatment to raise funds for, this is not about costs.

She was declared to have general capacity but not functional capacity in this situation and that was the assessment of the psychologists.

It is not in anyone's best interests to be put through painful procedures when there is no hope of any success (no treatment available to her at any cost).

All the money in the world won't achieve anything. But if people want to donate to something that will never happen and line someone elses pockets, as has happened in many of these futile fundraisers then that's their call.

But this is about personal choice & she's got capacity. It's not up to some professional to say how or when that should happen, if indeed it does. Since she's beaten the odds already by a country mile

Uh. What? There's no grey area you either have mental capacity or you do not. You can either make your own decisions or aren't fit to. In which case you are sectionable, if not, the process stops.

But her lack of willingness to accept the real situation she is in suggests she doesn’t have capacity in this situation.

seemingly she isn’t going into it knowing it’s a long shot and acknowledging the fact that even travelling a short distance is a massive risk. She appears to be of the belief that travelling will be fine and a miracle is at the other end. That isn’t showing capacity to make an informed decision in this case.

@Messyhair321
Mental health nurse here. No, capacity is a spectrum. Every situation has to be individually assessed and the capacity test applied-for example, someone may have capacity to decide what they want for lunch but not how to spend their money. Even the sickest people usually have some capacity, and someone who generally has capacity may fail the test.
In this case, she has general capacity for most things but not in this specific situation which was about whether or not she can instruct lawyers anyway. That’s what the court was ruling on.

@Messyhair321

"
Uh. What? There's no grey area you either have mental capacity or you do not. You can either make your own decisions or aren't fit to. In which case you are sectionable, if not, the process stops.
*"
*
No, this is exactly how it does not work. Capacity is decision specific. Have you read the judgement? It will make a lot more sense of you have.

Uh. What? There's no grey area you either have mental capacity or you do not. You can either make your own decisions or aren't fit to. In which case you are sectionable, if not, the process stops.

Yes there is. It's not binary. It is decision specific. You can have capacity generally but still not have capacity to make certain conditions. I hope your relatives who allegedly work in this area are aware of that.

Uh. What? There's no grey area you either have mental capacity or you do not. You can either make your own decisions or aren't fit to. In which case you are sectionable, if not, the process stops.

How to tell when someone hasn't read the court report and doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

@dorisdoesdidsbury quite