This was a Hearing to determine the type of treatment plan which should be put in place to feed and hydrate P.
The Protected Party (P) is in her thirties and is currently detained under section 3 of the Metal Health Act 1983 in hospital. P has a mild learning disability, complex PTSD, a dissociative disorder and an Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder at a borderline level. She has a history of violence towards herself and others, including those who care about her. Since August 2023, P has been limiting her intake of food and hydration. Her current dietary habits are incompatible with life. It has been accepted by all parties, which included clinicians from the Hospital Trust that without clinical intervention, P will die. P’s siblings believed that hospital interventions were traumatic for P, such that they worsened rather than improved P’s condition. The Judge met with P virtually and understood that she expressed a desire to get better.
The Court weighed up all the factors in the balance and declared that providing hydration and nutrition to P in accordance with a treatment plan and an escalation plan if the treatment plan was not to work, was lawful and in P’s best interests. The plan outlined that P would be electively admitted into a side room on a ward of the hospital, that there would be a physical restraint in place to enable IV access and then a chemical restraint or sedative would be required to get P to a level where she required minimal physical restraint. If P was unable to be safely managed on the ward, the treatment plan outlined that she would be moved to an Intensive Therapy Unit and would require sedation and a PICC line.
You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.